Admittedly the National Review is not exactly an objective media source either, but the author certainly makes some interesting points !
Printable View
Admittedly the National Review is not exactly an objective media source either, but the author certainly makes some interesting points !
Glad you posted this, Melonie. I encourage others to read it.
Thanks, Melonie.
I especially liked this bit: "Then again, worse rape and brutality than those displayed in Abu Ghraib are known to occur daily in America's prisons without arousing any media interest at all."
It does also seem as though Rumsfeld is a scapegoat, as always happens. Admiral Kimmel was summarily sacked after Pearl Harbor, and never held a serious command again--though many lay the blame on President Roosevelt. Of course I would be very glad to see Rumsfeld go, but not for his presumed responsibility for Iraqi prisoner abuse.
There are those who claim that the media is a tool of Liberals (demons and degenerate swine that they are), and there are those who claim that the media is a tool of Conservatives (greedy fascist pigs who would trade their mother for a good business deal).
I think the media, being controlled by humans, and subject to heavy censorship in a war zone (not entirely without good cause, rergardless of the morality of the war), is quite fallible.
I don't readily believe anything I read in any newspaper or I see on any television station anymore.
Djoser - lets not forget General Short was axed as a scapegoat as well for the unpreparedness of Pearl Harbor. Subsequent information over the years proves that Washington had intelligence and warning signs that something like that could happen. It was even logical it would, given the rise of tensions between Japan and the US since the 1920s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=9384;start=msg112189#msg1121 89 date=1085088349
Personally, I find the source of culpability that same as when Germany attacked The Soviet Union in June 1940. The build up on the Russia border by German divisions were so glaringly obvious it was stunning that no action was taken. That was because Stalin just would not believe Hitler would attack (that whole Non-Aggression Pact by von Ribbentrop worked well in that regard). That disbelief, I think, was rampant in Washington pre-Pearl Harbor. They just didn’t believe Japan would do such a thing.
I feel that exact disbelief is the cause of the in extractible mire we have in Iraq. Wolfowitz himself admitted the other day they did not count on such staunch sectional resistance and they did not count on the entire nation not bowing down in thanks for removing Saddam Hussein. In that regard, they disregarded the political situation when planning the military operations.
This all ties into "media coverage". The media is NOT an objective arm, no matter what we wish, hope and it to be. The operations of any media are tied into viewers or readership, which are brought into the fold by provocative stories. Sensationalism is what media believes draws people in - NOT pure news. And those views ultimately translate into advertising dollars - which is the main reason any media source exists for (and I do not believe they all only care about that bottom line - the idea of journalistic integrity still exists, even though it’s not always exhibited). The outrage and disbelief in what happen at Abu Garib taps into the disbelief that Americans could do that - American soldiers. The disbelief is as irrational as Stalin's disbelief in 1940, and Roosevelt’s disbelief in 1939. When you get thousands of people together, you WILL get a large number who don’t act according to accepted values. That is unpreventable. Yet we don’t want to believe that we as humans are not so cut and dried as that. Thus, the media reports what we will disbelieve - and that draws in people.
In that reality, no media outlet can be totally objective. The way I sift through it is by looking at multiple sources, and knowing beforehand the type of spin each source uses.
Just remember - atrocities by American soldiers are nothing new. Lt. Calley's Mai Lai massacre doing Viet Nam is the most well known example. During World War II, Private Eddie Slovak was tried and executed for cowardice in a highly publicized trial (and since been made into a book and a movie starring Martin Sheen). After he was executed, he was buried in a secret military cemetery in France that contained the bodies of 97 American soldiers who had been executed by the American Army for crimes and atrocities such as murder and rape. We today view the GI from World War II as the "Greatest Generation" and as paragons of heroism, sacrifice and duty. Most of the exhibited behavior that entirely justifies out view of them in that regard. Despite that, there were STILL bad apples amongst them.