I only recently discovered, Michael Yon's site, but I have found it to be very good. His rundown of an insurgent mortar attack, complete with insurgent video footage and UAV footage, as well as the epilgue detailing that capture of the insurgents is a really good overview of one incident amonng many facing US and Iraqi forces on a daily basis.

Great post!

Great post. So nice to see a compassionate, sensible post after the hatefulness which others have spewed on BC today.

Dave

Wow, that Michael Yon site is fantastic. Thanks for providing the link. Everyone who has bad things to say about our troops and the situation in Iraq should read that site and get a clue.

Dave

Dave,
Yes, I agree. I stumbled on Yon's site and have been recommending it. I agree with your assesment of it 100%.

Scott

A reporter who actually supports the troops! It's a rare thing, but a good thing...

You kind of have shit for brains when it comes to understanding reporting, the military or politics dontcha RJ?

Consider me insulted. Congrats on that.

Temple:

Did you read NEWSWEEK or TIME before the election? If you did, you would have gotten the impression that the war was lost, and our military is inept, corrupt, and evil.

Surely not ALL reporters are anti-military. Just a lot of the guys and gals in the MSM.

I meant nothing personal. But be offended all you want...

sorry you couldn't make it into an apology there. I saw you kind of tohught about trying.

It's personal when you include me, a reporter, in that mix.

It's not rare and you clearly don't know shit from chocolate pudding. It sounded good in your head so you typed it. There's no defense for the weak statement.

And no - I don't read Newsweek or Time. Only about 1.5 million Americans do.

Whatever. I'm a moron. The press is really rabidly pro-military. Just ask anyone!

(Sigh...)

It's not "whatever" It's just a really easy thing to say without thinking. Just ask anyone (maybe outside your circle of bloggers and friends). Try that.

The MSM went abso-fucking-lutely BATSHIT over the pics of that nasty little bitch with the dog collar around the terrorist's neck. For WEEKS.

Where was the outrage in the MSM over photos like the one cited in this post? Surely some skank humiliating a terrorist in a photo isn't nearly as horrific (or moving) as terrorists intentionally slaughtering little Iraqi children, and American troops trying to save their lives in the aftermath.

Here's a quote for ya:

Placed in a hypothetical scenario of travelling with enemy troops during a Vietnam-like war, Wallace and Jennings were asked if they would warn American soldiers walking into an impending ambush. At first Jennings said he would warn them, but famously switched his position after Wallace lectured him about what it means to be a journalist.

When Wallace was asked if he had any higher duty as an American, to save American lives rather than get 30 seconds of footage for the nightly news, he replied instantly, "No. You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

As recently as 1998, at a seminar at the University of Michigan, Wallace continued to insist, "I'm not an American first, I'm a reporter first."

Is that gospel truth about Wallace, RJ?

Temple, maybe I am missing the point of your rebuttal to RJ, but I have to say that the press/MSM, has taken the "bleeds/leads" meme and blown it out of all proportion in regards to Iraq, and war in genral. I am not saying that it should be portrayed as all sunshine and roses, but I have to look long and hard to see any positive developments being reported, and I find far too many of the reporters will only post facts or quotes to support a negative presupposition.

SFC SKi,

It's true that there are very few positive developments being reported. I'm not so convinced as you that this can be construed as mis-information. I am sure that Iraq is more safe then it was 1 year ago, but that does not mean its time to celebrate. Relatively speaking the average Iraqi is still less safe than he was under the old regime. Now I realize that the end goal is to have a new gov't, and peace, and full rights for all Iraqis. This is the ideal, but Iraq hasn't reached that point nor can it be said that Iraq is guaranteed to reach that point.

My point is this, all the progress so far is progress from the near-apocalyptic conditions of war (a war started by America). Ten years down the road, Iraq may still be in worse conditions than it was under Sadamm. Should the media really feel they need to put a positive spin on everything?

I am 100% in support of the work the troops are doing. I'm being genuine when i say that. But I do think that the troops, despite there efforts, are fighting in a war that shouldn't have happened. Moreover, I don't know where you get this feeling that America , or the media doesn't support their troops. I find it sickening how America has such blind patriotism and support for their soldiers. It seems as though anything a soldier does is sanctified by virtue of his position as a soldier. Anything a soldier says must be right, ir must be respected (because he offered his life for the country). Well, as the song says, I got soul but I'm not a soldier. I may not have gone to war but I have opinions of my own and I'm not required to support everything the soldiers do or the military does. Does that make me un-american, unpatriotic?

I am also confused about why you, Rj and Dave nalle, seem so eager to interpret this photographers picture as a pat on America's back. No one is calling American soldiers monsters. We shouldn't be surprised to see a soldier caring for a wounded child. This picture, if anything is about the girl who has died. Can't you empathize with this child, imagine what she might have been doing otherwise, had the war not happened?

What I see in this picture is the horrors of war. How unnecessary war is. I don't see the politics of war as you three seem so eager to construct. This is a child that would still be alive had it not be for this war. These are American soldiers out there losing their lives for a war that could have avoided.

And last thing; about progress in this war. Any progress in this war is on very very shaky ground. This is a country who's real test for survival will come long after America is gone. This is a country poised for civil war. Don't be so sure that America is doing any Iraqis a favour. Just be objective and quit trying to turn this sad photograph into political steppingstone.

I am not saying put a positive spin on all news from Iraq. I am suggesting that the MSM report all the news from Iraq and let the reader decide on its importance, and whether it supports a positive, neutral or negative outcome.

Right now 95% of the news out of Iraq is about some type of terrorist act, but there is much more going on there.

I agree, but I think it would seem really shady if we started suggesting there were really positive things happening. I mean how positive can it be. We blew up their country, and so should we be reporting the reconstruction as very positive?

i can see maybe 30% positive to, but in war times I think 70% of the coverage has to be negative. Their are thousands upon thousands of people diing there.. most of them innocent iraqis. How can we make more than 30% of the situation seem positive?

Y'all are getting, sadly easily, led astray by the idea that what is covered reflects anything to do with reporters being "anti-military."

One, people forget so much about the positive stories to do with the military, soldier's lives and the families of soldiers (dead or alive). They were plastered all over the TV this weekend, I see them every day - and two, yes, day to day, the stories that usually receive prominence aren't the positive ones (although off the battle filed / battle zone, battle region, they are overwhelmingly positive about the future of Iraq).

Don't confuse punditry with news either (although if you said it I would have to agree that it counts as "coverage")

But again, for those that haven't caught it, the coverage doesn't equal reporters who are anti-military. Or editors either. Some editors may be anti-war or anti-this-war, but I think you would have to agree those are two entirely different things.

What reporters are suspicous of are military leaders in the Pentagon and spokesman who rarely say a damn thing at press conferences THEY CALLED. Why are they suspicious? Because they have been lied to so many times. Perhaps in some case necessarily, perhaps not (again an argument for another day). The fact is the Pentagon has lied repeatedly (Mai Lai; Pentagon Papers for just vintage examples).

(And no this isn't an argument against or for political "bias." I'll leave that for another time as well.)

I agree temple shark . I don't think reporters are running around trying to misrepresnet the war. Thats just a wild conspiracy.

I do however, think that the new netwerks have their own agenda (making money)and so they will skew there coverage to meet their interests. I think it was in there interest to start the war (increase viewership), but now its inthere interst to end it (since the economy is tanking).

Sydney, sometimes you astound me, but if all you know is what you read in the papers, maybe you are not to be blamed.

We didn't "blow up their whole country". I have been all over Baghdad and outlying areas, and you can tell where the military targets were because there is a big whole in an otherwise untouched area. Yes, some civilian building got hit, but the point is that if you want to know what a surgical airstrike is, Iraq is about a textbook example.

If you had actually read about conditions in Iraq before March 2003, you'd know that the Iraqi infrastructure was ill maintained in most places, and abandoned in others under Saddam Hussein. Saddam chose to favor select areas and ignore others completely. He chose to spend the money allowed him under Oil-for-Food on building Potemkin Palaces instead of on infrastructure like hospitals, electrical grids, or sanitary waste managment. Knowing he could only sell so much oil under sanctions , he even allowed the majority of Iraq's petroleum infrastructure to fall into ruin.
Don't think for a moment that Baghdad was some wonderfully modern city until the day the first US bomb fell on it, becuase it was far from it. Are there still problems in Iraq? Yes, but not all of them were due to the invasion.

I didn't mean to suggest the city was in perfect shape before hand.

But I will maintain that American bombing and fighting did an enourmous amount of damage (both in terms of casualties and to infrastructure).

I just don;t think the media should be thanking America for any progress made in Iraq, because from my p.o.v. it was an unethical war, and it was one that the average Iraqi's despises America for.

>>I just don;t think the media should be thanking America for any progress made in Iraq, because from my p.o.v. it was an unethical war, and it was one that the average Iraqi's despises America for.<<

Sydney, what do you base this notion on? The mainstream press isn't reporting on the opinions of average Iraqis at all, and the material I've seen from alternative sources in Iraq suggests the exact opposite.

As for press bias against the war, I don't really see it. The press is doing just what they did in Vietnam, focusing on the sensational - the violence and the excesses which are inevitable in war - and ignoring the quiet, positive things which go on every day. This isnt symptomatic of bias, it's symptomatic of the callous opportunism of the media. Bad news keeps people watching. Good news turns you into the Pax network.

Dave

Well i think the most important aspect of war to focus on is the violence. Certainly there are alot of people afflicted by vioence in that contry and they would want their experinces depicted.

I think the average Iraqi demands sympathy from the world, and they wouldn't want the American media depicting heroic Americans in there doing all sorts of good deeds. That wouldn't represent their experinces, rather an excperince that makes Americans feel justified in their decision.

The violence is the most significant, most devestating aspect of war. It is the only aspect we need focus on -- as the positive aspects of this war are far from fruition, and are miniscule in comparison to the negative aspects (as of yet).

There is no indication that Iraq will be a wonderful, free, place to live any time soon. (I hope one day it will be, but its a long long ways from being that now).

So dave, we have fundementally different views on WAR, and on this war, and so we differ in our views of how the media should depict the war.

One point I will agree with you on, is that BIG MEDIA's coverage of the war is not motivated by objectivism, but by business interests. IF it slants to the right, or the left, it is merely a function of making more money.

Actually, I don't disagree with you on coverage of war. I'm just not sure what we have in Iraq right now is war. We've got US Soldiers helping to protect Iraqis from terrorists and rebuild their infrastructure, but there are no armies as such in the field, and no real pitched battles anymore.

And since it's not war, let's see more reporting on the rebuilding efforts and the projects soldiers are involved in aside from being attacked and hunting down terrorists.

Dave

"the economy is tanking"

Hmm...

Low inflation. A rebounding dollar. More jobs. A stock market heading upwards.

Yep, it's a regular fucking Great Depression around here...

I think that you are all wrong. Bush is the smartest man to ever live. and every one should bow down to him. even when hes on vacation. and i know that you are all idiots. and the war is dumb. stupid

bush is a thug and a criminal. its great to get rid of saddam and noone has a problem with helping iraqi kids, but 500 billion to iraq in the last two years when our roads, health care, social security, etc are crumbling. and to boot he misled us on the threat of iraq using 9-11 to stir up fear. that is a crime.

where are this man's priorities?