What's up with the media!?!?

[BigDog]

OK, I'm kind of a simple, bottom-line kind of guy, so...
Which benefits the terrorists more, media reports of problems or media reports of successes. You said it yourself, we're in a war for hearts and minds, but you have bought into the lie that the majority of Iraqi citizens are still in the balance. They're not. They have made up thier minds that they want a peaceful nation w/o the people who are creating the havoc that is occurring there. They recognize that the terrorists are the cause of the problem, not the Coalition. They recognize that the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq is their best hope for a stable future. But you won't hear that in the media, because it doesn't sell and it doesn't line up with the political bias of most editors/producers.

I'm not passing the buck for the problems in Iraq, but I'm not going to ignore the media's part in it, either. The terrorists know how to use the media to their best advantage and they take full advantage of the media's bias to help them. The reason the terrorists keep attacking Iraqi citizens is not to directly control the Iraqis, but to break down our resolve. This is what 4th generation warfare is all about. It's a tactic wherein a weaker opponent breaks down an opponents commitment to winning by creating a false impression that the cost of winning outweighs the benefits of winning. It's primary goal is to break down confidence in their opponents leadership, to make sure that every cost (lives, money, time etc.) is over-emphasized and exaggerated in thier impact, to cause their enemy to lose their resolve. This is the tactic we are fighting and it's target is people like yourself. The terrorists want to make you an enemy of their enemy and have succeeded far too often. This is what I was referring to in my prior post. It's the age-old concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The terrorists have made you the enemy of their enemy, making you their friend. This does not mean that they are your friend, but it certainly means that you are their's.

Take some time to study 4th Generation warfare. See how it was applied in Viet Nam, see how the Germans used a variant of it when taking over Norway (they applied it from a position of strength), see how the Russians used it at the end of WWII to take over most of E. Europe and keep the west from intervening. When you truly understand how 4th gen. warfare works, take an objective look at yourself and see if you can see how you've been targetted and hit in this war for OUR hearts and minds.

What benefits us the most is the truth. What benefits terrorist the most is us breaking agreements, being unethical, being foolish, and trying to hide it. You will always get caught and look ten time worse.

You simply can't make the media lie for you anymore. Even if the US press cooperated and pretended, like Fox does sometimes (putting the war to music of all silliness), the truth will escape and come over some other venue. And that is what is hurting us most today. We are getting caught in our lies. And that is what is hurting us most and helping the terrorist most.

BTW, you should study 4th Generation warfare more. If you did you would realize that your approach is in the wrong direction. You have to win the PR battle by being proactive, selling your case, and always, always telling the truth.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What benefits us the most is the truth.

I agree completely.

too bad we only get half of it from the mainstream media.

 

[BigDog]

you are so predictable!!!! It makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Yes, it does. Lennox Lewis doesn't care at all if you hit Mary Lou. Beat her up all day and night, Lennox is still going to hit you. Your premise is more than flawed.

I never said he did. its leftist twisted thinking that wants to claim something was said that wasnt, because you dont have an answer to my question.

Your question involves 9/11, something Saddam isn't party to. You have not asked a valid question yet. We could have kill OBL, invaded both Afganistan and Iraq, nuked Iran and the Saudis would have stilled pulled off 9/11 without the CIA and the FBI talking to each other. You are not stopping anything by being in Iraq; in fact, you are making the next attack more likely.

absolutely. had the FBI and CIA communicated better, they could have known before hand that 9-11 was a possibility, and done something to prevent it. you know, they could have been PRO ACTIVE. thanks for making my point for me.

I wont bother to respond to your last paragraph since it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with my point.

so, do you think we should be pro-active, or simply reactive in this war on terror?

I think we should proactively go after terrorist who threaten us. Saddam wasn't one of those. In fact, no country is. We face a movement and not a nation. The problem cannot be combated by invasion.

 

[BigDog]

I agree completely.

too bad we only get half of it from the mainstream media.

Which is not true. FS can show you many sites with the "good news." You can find all the news if you look for it. However, the truth is all news is not created equal. Bad news, as it is refered to, will always be published more and bolder. And frankly, it means more. As I have pointed out before, for every single bad item, you need 10-20 good news items. They are not equal and never will be.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes, it does. Lennox Lewis doesn't care at all if you hit Mary Lou. Beat her up all day and night, Lennox is still going to hit you. Your premise is more than flawed.

im beginning to think you are clueless as hell. try to stay on track.

Your question involves 9/11, something Saddam isn't party to. You have not asked a valid question yet.

sure I have. should we have been pro active involving afghanistan, the taliban, and al queda. simple question that DOESNT INVOLVE saddam.

We could have kill OBL, invaded both Afganistan and Iraq, nuked Iran and the Saudis would have stilled pulled off 9/11 without the CIA and the FBI talking to each other.

again, I agree. the CIA and FBI should have communicated better and been PRO ACTIVE. then we could have stopped 9-11 by taking the fight to the enemy BEFORE they attacked us.

You are not stopping anything by being in Iraq; in fact, you are making the next attack more likely.

nonsense. if the police decide they want to go into a gang infested area of south central LA and pro actively persue them, are they increasing or decreasing the likelyhood of future gang activity?

I think we should proactively go after terrorist who threaten us.

before 9-11, had al queda threatened us? your thinking is not logical. we must FIRST WAIT untill we are attacked, and then act. that is being REACTIVE and it didnt work on 9-11. it cost us 3000 lives.

Saddam wasn't one of those.

on 9-10, neither was Mohammed Atta. my point is clear. waiting untill AFTER THE ATTACK is simply a stupid, liberal, anti war idea that costs lives.

I submit that had we arrested Mohammed Atta on 9-9, the left would have been raising hell about how he was entitled to legal representation, and had rights.

Kind of like you are currently doing for the innocent bystanders at guitmo.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Which is not true. FS can show you many sites with the "good news." You can find all the news if you look for it. However, the truth is all news is not created equal. Bad news, as it is refered to, will always be published more and bolder. And frankly, it means more. As I have pointed out before, for every single bad item, you need 10-20 good news items. They are not equal and never will be.

you just made my case for me. you admitted the bad news outweighs the good in news reporting.

even here in the states we only get half the story. you can always easily find news about someone being robbed, beaten, stabbed or shot......but you must look much, much harder to find out who saved someones life, or did something positive.

there are just as many positive things happening around the world every day as there are negative.

to claim there is any balance whatsoever in news reporting is simply nonsense. but I can certainly understand your attempt here. you want us to believe America is losing the war, and nothing positive is going on.

I simply believe the media has an agenda.

and believe it or not, theres plenty of evidence to support that assertion. Ever hear of Dan Rather?

 

[BigDog]

you just made my case for me. you admitted the bad news outweighs the good in news reporting.

even here in the states we only get half the story. you can always easily find news about someone being robbed, beaten, stabbed or shot......but you must look much, much harder to find out who saved someones life, or did something positive.

there are just as many positive things happening around the world every day as there are negative.

to claim there is any balance whatsoever in news reporting is simply nonsense. but I can certainly understand your attempt here. you want us to believe America is losing the war, and nothing positive is going on.

I simply believe the media has an agenda.

and believe it or not, theres plenty of evidence to support that assertion. Ever hear of Dan Rather?

It's human nature. No one stops to watch traffic going smoothly. And this country cannot over come 20-60 people a day being killed with news that a school was build or an election held. No matter what the media reports, the people will faulter and the country will fall without security. And the only agenda the media has is to sell papers and report the news. Wanting them to say what makes you feel better speaks to your agenda and not theirs.

 

[ProudAmerican]

It's human nature.

that doesnt change the fact that my statement still stands.

we only get half the story.

thanks again for doing my job for me in this debate. first you say im wrong.....then you say "its human nature"

fine....its human nature.....but all that statement does is say im right.

just say "you are right....we only get half the story....but thats just human nature"

and then we wont have anything to argue about.

 

[BigDog]

that doesnt change the fact that my statement still stands.

we only get half the story.

thanks again for doing my job for me in this debate. first you say im wrong.....then you say "its human nature"

fine....its human nature.....but all that statement does is say im right.

just say "you are right....we only get half the story....but thats just human nature"

and then we wont have anything to argue about.

What part of no we don't are you not getting? We get the entire story. All of it. And in the appropriate doseage with more of the most important.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What part of no we don't are you not getting? We get the entire story. All of it. And in the appropriate doseage with more of the most important.

I think you are bi-polar.

in one post you state "its human nature" to only report the bad.

in the next you claim we get both sides of the story.

:screwy

 

[BigDog]

I think you are bi-polar.

in one post you state "its human nature" to only report the bad.

in the next you claim we get both sides of the story.

:screwy

No, I didn't. It is human nature to want to hear bad news more. We instintively know bad news is more important to us. Keep up.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No, I didn't. It is human nature to want to hear bad news more. We instintively know bad news is more important to us. Keep up.

oh keeping up with you isnt a problem I assure you.

 

[faithful_servant]

What benefits us the most is the truth. What benefits terrorist the most is us breaking agreements, being unethical, being foolish, and trying to hide it. You will always get caught and look ten time worse.

You simply can't make the media lie for you anymore. Even if the US press cooperated and pretended, like Fox does sometimes (putting the war to music of all silliness), the truth will escape and come over some other venue. And that is what is hurting us most today. We are getting caught in our lies. And that is what is hurting us most and helping the terrorist most.

BTW, you should study 4th Generation warfare more. If you did you would realize that your approach is in the wrong direction. You have to win the PR battle by being proactive, selling your case, and always, always telling the truth.

So why not publicize ALL of the truth, instead of cherry-picking the problems? Why not give just as much space to the reports of villages getting thier first clean water EVER? Why not publicize the ever growing efforts by Iraqi citizens to expose the terrorists in thier midst and the results of these efforts? ALL of this is happening TODAY. It's happening as I type and as you read. Telling the world about the good that is happening in Iraq would do huge damage to the efforts of the terrosists. They want the world to think that the Coalition is having no positive effect in Iraq so that they can steal the power there through more terrorism. Getting the Coalition out of the way is their key to acheiving thier goal of ruling Iraq by fear once again. Every report that focuses on the problems helps them in this goal. If the focus from the media was on the good, then public support for Iraq would be hugely higher than it is and the terrorists would have a far more difficult time getting the Coaltion to pull out prematurely. We should never, ever ignore the problems, but when the media's focus on them is helping to create some of them, then there is a problem with the media.

No one is making the media lie, it's just that they are selective in what they report and that selectivity supports the goals of the terrorists.

Once again, I'm going to ask you a simple question:
Do reports of progress in Iraq help the terrorists cause or harm it?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Once again, I'm going to ask you a simple question:
Do reports of progress in Iraq help the terrorists cause or harm it?

this is where he goes into a rant about how it isnt a valid question.

 

[faithful_servant]

this is where he goes into a rant about how it isnt a valid question.

Nah, my guess is that he'll ignore the question and try to change the topic, anything but answer honestly.

 

[faithful_servant]

What part of no we don't are you not getting? We get the entire story. All of it. And in the appropriate doseage with more of the most important.

This is the key to the whole issue. The most important news comming out of Iraq should be news of the huge numbers of successes we are having. You think that reports of our enemies successes are more important than reports of our successes. Do you think that just maybe there's a problem here????

 

[BigDog]

This is the key to the whole issue. The most important news comming out of Iraq should be news of the huge numbers of successes we are having. You think that reports of our enemies successes are more important than reports of our successes. Do you think that just maybe there's a problem here????

There hasn't been a huge number of successes. Even the adminstration has been down grading everything for over a year now. The truth is what is most important. And the truth is Iraq is in trouble.

That is the answer to your question. You can't skew a question that is factually inaccurate and expect an answer you'll like. We live in the information age; there is no longer just a choice of only what we want getting out. Those days are gone forever. So, to support this country and the effort, you have no other choice than to demand truth and that the government make better choices.

 

[BigDog]

Once again, I'm going to ask you a simple question:
Do reports of progress in Iraq help the terrorists cause or harm it?

Neither. As long as there is no security, reports of "progress" mean nothing. Look at Maslow's Hiearcy of needs and you will see people never concern themselves with lofty aspirations as long as more basic needs remain un met. This far down the road and still power and basics are not up to the dismal prewar levels. The hospitals are overflowing with the injured and ill. Violence is a daily occurance. As long as these are true, you waste your time being concerned with "good news."

 

[faithful_servant]

Neither. As long as there is no security, reports of "progress" mean nothing. Look at Maslow's Hiearcy of needs and you will see people never concern themselves with lofty aspirations as long as more basic needs remain un met. This far down the road and still power and basics are not up to the dismal prewar levels. The hospitals are overflowing with the injured and ill. Violence is a daily occurance. As long as these are true, you waste your time being concerned with "good news."

Very impressive job of evading the question... First, you minimize the importance of the question, then you throw out some psuedo-intellecual references to side-track the issue, following it up with false information spoon-fed to you by the very people we are discussing.

The question was not about the Iraqi people, but about the terrorists cause. The Iraqi people will end up under the gov't whoever wins the battle for the hearts and minds of the nations that are committed to Iraq's future. The pervasive and inaccurate portrayal of unending problems with no successes is the single most important weapon in this war. Nothing else will have a greater influence on it's outcome than the perception of success or failure by the people of the nations of the Coalition. The Iraqi people are already seeing the benefits of the presence of the Coalition troops in Iraq, but you won't hear that because it simply doesn't sell ad time and doesn't support the political bias of the decision makers within the media.

Take some time to research the successes we are having in Iraq, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, electricity, increased freedom, people voting in free elections, people lining up to join the IA and IP, even at the cost of their own lives just to get in line. I wasn't a big supporter of OIF, until I got to read some emails from my nephew who was a top-gunner on a humvee in Bagdad. His emails were eye-opening about what was being donein Iraq. People blather on about how we're just fixing what we broke, but the truth is that most of Iraq was in a incredible state of poverty and the infrastructure was so neglected that 1/2 of Bagdad hadn't had running water in decades (since long before SH decided to invade Kuwait). The damage that was done during OIF, was done by the Baathists, not the Coalition.
Many parts of Iraq had great stuff going on under the Baathists, but these were limited to areas that fully supported the Baathists. If you didn't, you lived in squalor. This was the reality of Iraq, not some ME paradise, but a nation kept under the thumb of one of the most oppressive and abusive gov'ts ever.

 

[massive_attack]

News Flash : The media is mainly about reporting the bad news. This has little to do with Iraq. I repeat, the media thrives off of bad news, this has little to do with Iraq.

As I said previously in this thread, think back to pre-9/11, to pre-Iraq, pre-Afganistan. The media wasn't exactly the deliverer of sunshine and roses then either.

Yes it sucks they mainly only deliever the bad news.
Yes this gives a messed up view of Iraq, Afganistan and so on.
Yes that is a bad thing.

Idea : Boycott the mass media. Don't watch them. Get your friends not to watch them. Write them letters, take action. They only respond to monitary loss. They don't actually care about the news, but you knew this already. Continue to get your news from alternative sources and every now and then fire off another letter to NBC telling them how much of a joke they are.

Personally I stopped watching TV news some time ago. It's a HUGE joke on so many levels. What made me mad the most was they take an issue that requires 30 minutes to explain, or many many pages in written form and break it down to 15 seconds. What is it, some news channel actually does a piece called "around the world in 60 seconds" or something like that. LOL

It took me a while to get to this point. It all started when I noticed my local media was dominated by crap. I live in the fourth largest city in the US and yet my local news channel would constantly consist of someones puppy, someones lawn and garden, someone with a sewer poblem or some other equally unimportant "news" item. I think the other day I saw people on the news complaining about the graffiti problem in their upscale neighborhood. Oh ya, that's a real problem. That's news worthy.

Now I watch the "news" when I want to laugh.

Sorry for the tangent.

 

[BodiSatva]

In general, the major news media is a joke.

We don't watch TV, so we don't see their crap...
We certainly do not read the major liberally biased print media that is just as crappy...

Read foreign print...

Drudge, Levine Breaking News and NewsMax are pretty independent, though they are losing some of their edge.

Whatever your choose...

THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!

 

[Hoot]

This is the key to the whole issue. The most important news comming out of Iraq should be news of the huge numbers of successes we are having. You think that reports of our enemies successes are more important than reports of our successes. Do you think that just maybe there's a problem here????

Let's suppose you're right? Let's suppose for a moment that the media is guilty of not reporting the sucesses of Iraq?

Here's something interesting I heard on none other then Faux news...

Iraq does not want the sucesses reported, such as, a new school re-opening, because this news is used by the insurgents to plan their next attack.

The insurgents do not want this 'American led Iraq' to succeed, therefore, reports of a new school opening, or a hospital, are only placing big targets on these facilities for future terrorist attacks.

I'm not saying this is the whole truth, but I believe there's more truth to this then we realize.

 

[BodiSatva]

I am sure that the terrorists are well aware of were new schools are and new hopitals without having to turn on ANY news channel, let alone Fox, ABC, CNN, etc. :2razz:

 

[Hoot]

I am sure that the terrorists are well aware of were new schools are and new hopitals without having to turn on ANY news channel, let alone Fox, ABC, CNN, etc. :2razz:

You could be right, but remember...Iraq is basically the land mass size of California. The insurgents can't be everywhere. Again, I'm not saying I totally support the premise that reporting success in Iraq invites terrorist attacks, but it's an interesting theory.

Again...if you agree that the terrorists do not want an American led Iraq to succeed, then any news of success could very well be painting a large bulls-eye on that particular success.

If you had a child attending a new Iraqi school...would you feel safer having that info spread world-wide...or kept low-key?

 

[BigDog]

Very impressive job of evading the question... First, you minimize the importance of the question, then you throw out some psuedo-intellecual references to side-track the issue, following it up with false information spoon-fed to you by the very people we are discussing.

The question was not about the Iraqi people, but about the terrorists cause. The Iraqi people will end up under the gov't whoever wins the battle for the hearts and minds of the nations that are committed to Iraq's future. The pervasive and inaccurate portrayal of unending problems with no successes is the single most important weapon in this war. Nothing else will have a greater influence on it's outcome than the perception of success or failure by the people of the nations of the Coalition. The Iraqi people are already seeing the benefits of the presence of the Coalition troops in Iraq, but you won't hear that because it simply doesn't sell ad time and doesn't support the political bias of the decision makers within the media.

Take some time to research the successes we are having in Iraq, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, electricity, increased freedom, people voting in free elections, people lining up to join the IA and IP, even at the cost of their own lives just to get in line. I wasn't a big supporter of OIF, until I got to read some emails from my nephew who was a top-gunner on a humvee in Bagdad. His emails were eye-opening about what was being donein Iraq. People blather on about how we're just fixing what we broke, but the truth is that most of Iraq was in a incredible state of poverty and the infrastructure was so neglected that 1/2 of Bagdad hadn't had running water in decades (since long before SH decided to invade Kuwait). The damage that was done during OIF, was done by the Baathists, not the Coalition.
Many parts of Iraq had great stuff going on under the Baathists, but these were limited to areas that fully supported the Baathists. If you didn't, you lived in squalor. This was the reality of Iraq, not some ME paradise, but a nation kept under the thumb of one of the most oppressive and abusive gov'ts ever.

Let's be clear about something. Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it was avoided. I was clear and plan that it is neither. And I explained why.

And I know all about the successes in Iraq. Anyone who wants to know, knows. But there is simply not enough success to counter balance the bad. You could run the "good news" 24 hours a day, on all stations and in all papers, never mention anything bad, and you'd still be losing the PR war because this violence cannot be kept secret, especially from Iraqis.

So, the truth is all that needs be reported or expected. You don't like the bad news, secure the country.