Why The Press Is So Bad On War Coverage
Dean
I left this comment in response to an apparently sincere leftist over at right wing nuthouse and thought it worth slightly editing and expanding and reprinting here:
Can you explain in a straightforward way why, as you say, the left, aided by the liberal media, want to undermine the war effort?
The “left” generically speaking (there are always honorable exceptions) either opposed the war effort from the beginning or turned against it the moment it looked like mistakes and other bad things were happening. Worse, due to their general ignorance of military matters and of history, many of these people actually seem to think there has sometime, somewhere been a war where there were no screwups, nasty surprises, embarassments, frustrations, terrible things done by some of our own people, or unforeseen consequences.
The left also frequently tends to lack that form of patriotism which sincerely says, "I opposed this war but now that we're in it I want us to succeed, so I'm not going to be party to people who slander our armed forces, nor will I seize on every setback or mistake as proof that the whole enterprise is evil and doomed to failure." They didn't used to be so unpatriotic that way, but that's the way many people are today.
Anyway, the media has an overrepresentation of such people in it. Add to that the institutional anti-military, anti-government cynicism that’s pervaded the press since the Watergate days, the “if it bleeds it leads” profit motive, and the general shallowness and laziness of most news organizations, and you have the mess we see today. (Oh, and by the way: being shallow and lazy in war coverage when your own troops are on the ground is unpatriotic all by itself.)
On top of all that, there's the fact that so many shallow, stupid people conflate “supporting the war effort” with “supporting the Bush administration” and you’ve got the perfect recipe for what we have now: a shallow, cynical, negative, stupid, and reflexively anti-American press corps that rarely even stops to think about whether American interests will be harmed by printing half-assed allegations, by printing anonymous rumors, or by showing events in a context that makes isolated crimes look like rampant and pervasive evil.
It’s not hard to explain any of this. Nor is it unfixable. But you can’t fix something that you won’t admit is broken. Step #1: Admit that you have a problem. Step #2: admit that reporting good news and success does not equal "touting the Bush administration line" and that reporting good news is legitimate journalism. Step #3: Admit that objectivity isn't possible, and that being fair to your own fellow Americans when there's life and death at stake is an honorable practice. Step #4... I'll leave it to others to suggest a few others.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Why The Press Is So Bad On War Coverage
- Journalistic Sickness
But, thankfully, Dean, you make it crystal clear that you can support the war effort and still disapprove of going to war and the President.
Indeed, one of the more common complaints of Bush critics is that people who support the war supposedly think you have to support Bush to do it--without themselves noticing just how often they do exactly the same thing.
Publishing good news on Iraq becomes "Bush apologism." Condemning sloppy reporting becomes "pro-Bush spin." If you argue that from an historical perspective this war is incredibly light in casualties and that we have made stunning achievements, you "only think that because you voted for Bush." (That last one being not just stupid, but downright offensive.)
After your "hi bill" comment I had such hope, hopes dashed by this entry.
Dean, you're a recidivist.
Now that my insanity has passed.., ;-)
I'm black, independent and leaning green, a Louis Farrakhan supporter (bad man, me), and I support the Iraq War. Didn't want us to go there but since we're there, we have to win it. Now get with the program, folks.
“The Left” has always been that way. There was a brief hudna for World War II after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Their relaxation wasn't to support the United States. It was to preserve Socialism.
How many MSM people have served in the military? How many understand what a war is? Does the MSM think that Maureen Dowd represents a credible voice on war?
Ok, seriously. I'll say it again. You guys need to review your impression of who exactly is "the left".
Yes, we have our nutjobs (PETA, Che club, etc). Yes, they say a lot of stupid shit. Yes, the "liberal" politicians don't actually do the stuff we believe in the vast majority of the time.
Most of us "real people", "on the left" do believe what Dean said "I opposed this war but now that we're in it I want us to succeed, so I'm not going to be party to people who slander our armed forces, nor will I seize on every setback or mistake as proof that the whole enterprise is evil and doomed to failure.". Hell, I've had half a dozen conversations in the last few months about "maybe we were wrong about the war being a bad idea."
We consider our criticism of Bush &Co to be justified and downright patriotic. (Just like many of you considered your criticism of Clinton... which I will also note, did not stop during the military actions in Eastern Europe.)
I volunteered with MoveOn, and all of the ppl I worked with were doing plenty of eye rolling at much of the stuff the organizers said. They had Michael Moore come in at one point, and NO ONE on my immediate team wanted to go see him. We just didn't like Bush at all, and MoveOn was the first group to come along that we though we could help with. (It wasn't until later that I realized MoveOn did more harm than good.)
But it's the same on the right. Look at Dobson or Buchannan or Limbaugh, young earth creationists or doctor murdering right-to-lifer's.
Don't just a group or movement by it's extremists... even though they are always the ones that scream the loudest.
We on "the left" don't respect them either.
"How many MSM people have served in the military? How many understand what a war is?" Please, of the current administration or congress, how many of them have served in the military? How many understand what a war is? How many have a child in the line of fire?
As a country we have no idea. Such a small percentage serves. Even the some of the true pacifists I know support manditory service, in some form (military, americorps or similar thing).
It's simpler than that. The fact is that those who've served in the military can understand what's going on. Those who haven't can't, unless they've taken the time to familiarize themselves with the issues. Clearly, those who have, all six of them, are defense reporters. The rest are ignorant, and like it that way.
I was once complaining to a reporter--not a columnist--who had said during Desert Storm that Bush had ordered the mass bombing of women and children and, during the discussion of this moron's so-called reporting, referred to the Strategic Bombing Survey of WW II.
"Oh," she said, "I don't know anything about that."
The plain implication was that not knowing anything about that was GOOD, while knowing about such vile things was evidence of babykillingness. Had she ever learned anything about war, she'd have had a voluntary knowledgectomy in order to arrive at her pinnacle of moral righteousness as exemplified by holy cluelessness.
Now, by itself, that's okay. We have enough oxygen to sustain such parasites. But it's not okay when reporting.
See?
My point on MSM was that they aren't "liberal". Just incompetent.
You will note Ann Coulter's list of the stories Mike Isikoff got that Newsweek thought needed some extra work. They got scooped in the process. These stories were either true or better sourced than the Gitmo story.
But they would have made Clinton look bad.
Newsweek hurries with a story that might make Bush look bad.
Everybody was running with the Al Kaka ammo dump story--which was no story--and the flu vaccine shortage--which turned into a surplus.
Guess when the first disappeared and the second became not so much a problem>>>?
Riiiiiight!. November of 2005, approximately ninety seconds after the election.
You can work on the coincidence angle a bit, if you wish.
She valued incompetence as an earnest of her (liberal) position.
Admit that there is no such nationality as "citizen of the world/UN". Pick a country, and be loyal to it.