a marine's report from Iraq

[sec159row2]

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm

[kapkomet]

Interesting. It does support what I was saying last week.

[mreye]

Very cool stuff.

 

The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***.

    Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.

    Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

    According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.

    For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there.

    That's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

[YASNY]

They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.

 

This makes me want to :puke

 

The media is not biased. Yeah. Right. :headshake

[kapkomet]

This makes me want to  :puke

 

The media is not biased.  Yeah.  Right.  :headshake

Oh come on, YAS! We only see 5,637,234,346 articles a day on THIS forum about how everything is wrong that Bush says, does, or thinks.

[YASNY]

Oh come on, YAS!  We only see 5,637,234,346 articles a day on THIS forum about how everything is wrong that Bush says, does, or thinks.

 

A very 'conservative' estimate, imho.

[Texsox]

This makes me want to  :puke

 

The media is not biased.  Yeah.  Right.  :headshake

 

YASNY,

 

How would you balance the news? By column inches? By topic? Would you not print a negative article until you have a positive to "balance" it? I am interested in how you would cover the Iraq War. Would you not cover any deaths to US Troops, or only print them on days when there is "good" news to balance? How many articles would you read on the repairs to gas lines? If they printed a story about 115 Iraqi kids who walked three blocks to school today, would you read it? Would you read it again tomorrow? I keep hearing bias in the reporting, but I'm not certain what the solution is.

 

Why is the media so biased? Profit? Ideology?

[YASNY]

YASNY,

 

How would you balance the news? By column inches? By topic? Would you not print a negative article until you have a positive to "balance" it? I am interested in how you would cover the Iraq War. Would you not cover any deaths to US Troops, or only print them on days when there is "good" news to balance? How many articles would you read on the repairs to gas lines? If they printed a story about 115 Iraqi kids who walked three blocks to school today, would you read it? Would you read it again tomorrow? I keep hearing bias in the reporting, but I'm not certain what the solution is.

 

Why is the media so biased? Profit? Ideology?

 

I believe it's ideology. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it's broke and needs to be fixed. I don't really care what some around here say, the media has been biased to the left for 30 years (or at least since I began paying attention to more than the sports scores). I'm also not going to argue the point because it's a waste of time. I'm not going to convince anyone to change their minds, and they damn sure aren't going to change mine.

[Texsox]

I believe it's ideology.  I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it's broke and needs to be fixed.  I don't really care what some around here say, the media has been biased to the left for 30 years (or at least since I began paying attention to more than the sports scores).  I'm also not going to argue the point because it's a waste of time.  I'm not going to convince anyone to change their minds, and they damn sure aren't going to change mine.

 

Then why can't conservatives get a foot hold in the media? Are conservatives just not interested in journalism? Are they denied opportunties in colleges?

 

How would you cover the Iraq War?

 

How would you fix the media?

 

I don't want to change yours, but I am willing to change mine. The media does look biased to me, to the right. I've always assumed if they are down the middle, they will look liberal to conservatives and conservative to the liberals.

[YASNY]

Then why can't conservatives get a foot hold in the media? Are conservatives just not interested in journalism? Are they denied opportunties in colleges?

 

How would you cover the Iraq War?

 

How would you fix the media?

 

I don't want to change yours, but I am willing to change mine. The media does look biased to me, to the right. I've always assumed if they are down the middle, they will look liberal to conservatives and conservative to the liberals.

 

I'm not taking the bait, ol buddy.

[Texsox]

I'm not taking the bait, ol buddy.

 

No bait. I want to really understand what y'all mean by bias.

 

Do you believe that Jesse Jackson and Rush should be able to open the same newspaper and not see bias, or is it ok if Rush buys the Tribune and Jackson the Sun-Times and both are happy with that? Should the media be unbiased as an industry, by company, by program, or by story?

 

I don't see how you and I could buy the same newspaper and not see bias. I also don't see how during the Lewinski scandel that good and bad coverage could ever be balanced in the same story and I sure wouldn't want the media to hold the story until Clinton did something right.

[mreye]

No bait. I want to really understand what y'all mean by bias.

 

Do you believe that Jesse Jackson and Rush should be able to open the same newspaper and not see bias, or is it ok if Rush buys the Tribune and Jackson the Sun-Times and both are happy with that? Should the media be unbiased as an industry, by company, by program, or by story?

 

I don't see how you and I could buy the same newspaper and not see bias. I also don't see how during the Lewinski scandel that good and bad coverage could ever be balanced in the same story and I sure wouldn't want the media to hold the story until Clinton did something right.

I'd like to see less "opinion" in "reporting."

 

Just my $0.02

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'd like to see less "opinion" in "reporting."

 

Just my $0.02

From the good Doctor of Journalism:

 

"So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here -- not under any byline of mine or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."