Two US soldiers tortured to death, where is the outrage from the left now????

Wow. You told me.

I generally refuse even to discuss world events with people who rely on the corporate media's spoonfed propaganda and who identify strictly as either "Republican" or "Democrat." It would be very much the same as trying to discuss reality with an orthodox believer in Ingsoc (1984 reference).

I have my own reasons to be sick of my industry and I'm working on my way out, but I have to say, in my 10 years in it, I've never seen anything that even comes close to being what people like you and Kendra describe. Younger journalists are generally idealists who actually give a shit about making the world around them better. The older ones are generally burned out and counting the days until retirement or a career change. Editors are generally concerned about bringing useful information to their readers or viewers, cramming as much useful stuff in the pages or minutes they are allowed. No one I know has had the energy, interest or desire to spoonfeed anyone anything. Most of us don't give a damn if you read/see our work or not.

It isn't what the people at that level are doing that matters. It's the networks themselves.

Capital Cities, which was partly founded by Bill Casey (who was also its lawyer and a member of the board of directors), former CIA director under Reagan, took over ABC in March 1985. This happened following ABC's efforts in 1984 to cover a CIA scandal in Hawaii connected to the investment firm BBRDW (Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong) that showed connections between money laundering, drugs and the CIA's Nugan Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nugan_Hand_Bank) bank. Today, those of us who read our history understand that ABC is basically just the property of the CIA (and part of the Walt Disney Company).

Now Fox ... Fox, Fox, Fox ... do I really need to say it? Here. If you need help, here's a link that covers some good examples nicely:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/unfair___unbalanced.html

There. That's a sampling. Honestly, I'm getting lazy at the moment, and nobody's paying me to do this, so I'll just drop this link on you for the rest, which breaks down in broad terms who owns whom:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

And in case you need to have your hand held in understanding why all of this matters:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/04/media_ownership.html

There. Sorry, it's not the most organized case ever made, but I threw it together in like 5-10 minutes by using what I already know in general terms to reference specific information relevant to it.

Again, I'm not blaming working individuals here. It isn't journalists themselves who concern me so much as the corporations who control the networks in the first place.

But since you say you're a journalist, may I ask what kind? Broadcast or print? Do you mind indicating for whom (I certainly understand if you'd rather not)?

Daily print. I'll go so far as to say business reporting, but that's all I can really say. Because everyone knows, reporters don't have opinions of their own

You know, I think you could give me Company Z and Person A and through six or fewer degrees of separation, I could make everything look very sinister, indeed.

Does corporate meddle with us? Yeah, but it's more for things like that mainstreaming I talked about, or dictums to get more "real life, real news" in the paper, or work more to put multimedia elements on the website. It's nothing more shady than that. In fact, to my paper's credit, they stood in my corner when I did a story on the biggest company and employer in town that upset them to the point of pulling their ads.

Conspiracy? I just don't see it. We're far too busy trying to figure out what the hell is going to happen with us when the old folks die and the young'uns don't want to read a newspaper anymore. That is what concerns the boys in the boardroom more than anything else.

As a former military journalist, I must not either. Especially since it was military.



See, it isn't six. It's zero. Or just one, in the case of the CIA's "separation" from ABC. It isn't like I'm drawing wild, thinly stretched connections here.

So I'll accept your implied challenge, but I'm going to modify it to make it fair. Can you do it with just one? Let's say I give you the company From The Wilderness (an indy media source I refer to sometimes). Can you, using no more than one degree of separation, make a compelling connection between FTW and conflicting corporate interests?

The problem here is that you aren't really responding to what I'm saying (somehow we got from direct, proven corporate ownership to "six degrees of separation" so much as (figuratively) plugging your ears and saying, "No, that can't be because it doesn't fit my already established worldview." From what (little) I understand of cognitive science, that's what happens when facts bounce off and a frame remains despite those facts.

Secondly, while print media is certainly compromised, I'm inclined to think it isn't as compromised as network media. It also isn't as important; let's both be honest with ourselves on that point. You and I both know that the first thing a person sees on a newspaper page is the biggest, most colorful (assuming color) photo (edit: or graphic ). The next thing is the biggest, boldest headline. Then the person might get through the lead sentence, and if you're really lucky, he/she might even read a few paragraphs. That is the kind of average attention span we're working with here. It's the kind of attention span that gets most of its news, most of the time, from the TV, not from newspapers.

Oh Christ almighty, have pity on a girl. Can you pick an organization more than three people have heard of? I'm much like many journalists in this way at least: I'm lazy, and really, I have no desire to go traipsing off to dig out ownership info on this company I just heard of when I should be cleaning the house for my parents' impending arrival (really, I should, kick me in the pants, please...)

I maintain, in principal, that it's a rather simple thing to arrange facts in order to make anything look shadowy. Ownership interest? Especially if it's a publicly traded company, that's duck soup.




Sort of. It doesn't fit the worldview because it attempts to describe the world I live in work in, and that you (unless you're still in journalism) do not. I'm going to go on thinking I know a thing or two more about the business than someone on the outside with an agenda and an axe to grind. Sorry, but that's the way it is.



Yeah, which all goes to prove that the masses are asses. But that's hardly the media's fault.

Now, now. Common sense dictates that if it's not exactly part of corporate America's machine, it's not going to be the biggest kid on the block, either.

Nor is FTW such a small choice. It isn't like I sent you to someone's blog. As of 2004, it had more the 12,000 subscribers. Nor is its founder just some kid blogging in his basement. This is a man who travels the world speaking and has rubbed elbows with members of Congress. Controversial? Sure he is. But he's the real thing:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml



Then hon, get to work on that. I think you've got your work cut out for you if you really want to pursue this further anyway. Besides, I'm starting to feel like an advertisement, and that's never a good sign.

*looks around the room and sighs*

Actually, digging for info on a website that has a third the subscribers as the first paper I worked at would be much more fun, at this point.

/me pouts

Yeah... so... g'night for now

This is pretty much what I would expect, the big wigs can't, won't, and don't want to micro-manage the exact content and wording of every news story. Maybe they drop in here and there for major stuff, but I don't think they're editing every Iraq war story being written..if any of them. That's left in the hands of the lower level people--who according to polls lean pretty heavily to the left. I've studied the arguments for both the media being liberal and conservative with an open mind, and even considered the media conservative at one point, but these are the conclusions I've come to so far.

But I think a major element is still being forgotten:

MONEY - that's what the executives care about the most.

If the news is getting ratings, the executives are mostly happy. But those devious little snippet comments that get snuck in here and there, or the tone of a news report, possibly even the content of a news report, are largely up to left-leaning individuals who went into journalism for THE WRONG REASONS: to make a difference in the world.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

The correct reason is to inform, educate, and enlighten with as FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE information as humanly possible. Not to push or promote some agenda that some stupid journalist ass thinks is the solution to all the world's problems. And of course this goes for the fewer in number conservative news journalists too, they all do it, even if it's not always intentional. That's why you have to listen to both the "liberal" and "conservative" news sources, if you only pay attention to one of them and not the other you're not getting the full story. Then again if you refuse to watch one or the other you're probably too biased for it to matter, anyway.

I agree with much of this, but...



Well, really, why else would anyone go into journalism? It sure isn't for the great pay.

Even by giving people the facts, most of my colleagues believe they are improving the world. Just because they want to make the world a better place, don't assume they are doing it from a liberal or conservative bias. Of course, some probably do come at it from one of those perspectives.

Reminds me of my favorite prof, who used to say, "Truth? I don't know what the hell truth is. Give me the facts."

Now, about the money thing? Trust me, we're never allowed to lose sight of that fact!

(going back to work now, I swear)

My favorite quote was, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Actually you make a good point--informing and educating does "make a difference" in a good way. If someone wants to make a difference in that way, fine, they're probably a good jounalist... that isn't the type of journalist I was getting at though.

*bangs head on desk*

It.

Isn't.

The.

Journalists.

Who.

Are.

The.

Problem.



Unless you count the likes of Bill O'Reilly, but I rather think that would call for an incredibly loose definition of "journalist."

I have been to many different Christian churches, and none of them teach that the Bible is fallible. Here is a list of well-known religious and political leaders who would say that, in fact, the Bible is INfallible: President Bush, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sen. Sam Brownback, Pat Buchanan, and Billy Graham. Most of the people who would fall under the heading "religious right" believe that the Bible is infallible and most believe that it should be taken literally. Just needed to correct that glaring error, even though it's "way off the point."

The problem is the mass of people who would rather hear or read about Lance Bass being gay than sort out the unraveling mess in Somalia.

At the end of the day, news is a business. And you only get to stay in business by giving people what they want. So that means more Lance Bass and less Lebanon.

I'm curious about the assumption that allowing a sovereign government, even a wicked one, to go on is "supporting" it. Would the US allow other nations to meddle in our affairs, perhaps invading us for killing the Native Americans, or having slaves years after other nations stopped, or perhaps for religious reasons? I should certainly hope not!

And let's look at it being darn near impossible to say they'd have been better off. Let's assume that during Saddam's 20 years, he killed 400,000 people, which is more than even the White House even claims. After 3 years of US occupation, the UN says 100 Iraqis are dying on average EACH DAY, meaning that if we kept that rate up for 20 years (the length of Saddam's dictatorship), there would be 704,000 dead. Surely some people are benefitting from the US occupation (and no, not only cronies and defense contractors, but also civilian groups like the Kurds in north Iraq). But it's hard to argue that Iraqis, on average, are better off under US occupation.

But that's not really the point of this thread, is it? The question is, why aren't people outraged over the deaths of American soldiers, and what should we do in response to such deaths? My guess is that most people are pretty numbed to the war, and are comfortable with it being a far-off concept to their daily lives. People are surely saddened by the deaths of US soldiers, but don't act based on that. On the other hand, most people are against the war in the US, but we don't see large-scale protests reflecting that, either. t is appropriate that such deaths cause us to think about the cost of this war, and how best to do what we feel needs to be done. For those who feel that we're there now and have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made rather than leaving total anarchy (most Americans feel this way according to polls), it's not clear how to react to these deaths. Anger, sadness, resolve, and creativity to try different approaches are all appropriate responses, it would seem.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=6810b7fdQ2F2Q26hQ3B2Q5ERoQ25nRRQ2FT2T55Q7D25k2HS2Q26RnVQ5E2,Q2BQ5EQ5EVhhqQ25Q2F2HSQ2BnqmcQ5DQ2F,V

It's not a binary choice, i.e. that we are supporting (even implicitly) or invading them. We could have treated them as we do Cuba or North Korea, which would be even more disastrous to most Iraqis.


The number of deaths is much closer to 2 million than 400,000. You have to add in the deaths from the several wars that he instigated (primarily the Iran-Iraq war) and the disastrous effects of the sanctions that resulted. Compare the life expectancy and child mortality rates in 1980 vs. 2000 and you'll begin to get a feel for how many deaths Saddam is truly responsible for.

You also can't outright assume that the current death rate will just continue for the next 20 years. That is obviously not the plan. It's possible that the death rate and overall health of the country will steadily improve as the government stabilizes and security is restored. it's also possible that it will devolve into a full scale civil/religious war where 1 million or more are killed. It's a complex calculus to evaluate the probabilities and consequences.

Certainly the average Iraqi is not safer than he was 4 years ago, there is always a period of instability with such major changes. But he's a lot closer to living in a prosperous, free, democratic, modern society than he was then. This is pretty much their only chance at self-determination.

I'll ask you the same questions I have of everyone else (and which they have declined to fully answer).

1) Assuming we didn't invade. What was your ideal scenario for Iraq? Wearing your most rosy glasses (within reason), how was Iraq going to be pulled back into the international community, and how was it going to transition into a democratic and free society?

2) Why do we hold the principle that our rights and freedoms are so precious that we must fight to the death over even modest restrictions that make us nominally safer (e.g. Patriot Act), but that other people in the world are just fine living under a brutal dictatorship as long as most of them are secure in their daily lives.

(Please turn on private messages is you wish me to respond again.)

First of all, for my part, at least, I always bristle a little inside when I see phrases like "outraged over the deaths of American soldiers." Why, you ask? Very simply: implicit in such a phrase is that American human beings possess inherently more value and more of a right to exist than other human beings. That is, the phrase implies that there's no cause for any special outrage or sadness over the deaths of human beings in general but only over the deaths of Americans specifically.

Second, there have been large anti-war protests. The corporate media has just made them barely exist by ignoring them as much as possible. And yes, in a world wherein the overwhelming majority of Americans see the goings-on of the world only through what makes it onto CNN, ABC or the like, anything the corporate media chooses to ignore for all intents and purposes does not exist to them. It's not merely that people shrug important happenings off; it's that they aren't even aware of them. Remember: the best form of deception is not falsification of facts but merely total selective omission.

Finally, while it's true that most people seem to favor staying "because we have to now," the real truth is that we're staying -- and were always going to stay -- for the very reason we went there in the first place: oil. And no, not merely oil for money. Rather, even beyond that, oil for itself. Together, oil, coal and natural gas are the energy sources that form the foundation of indusrial society. The final end-use products of industrial civilization can probably be boiled down to electricity, transportation and plentiful food supplies, and none of those are possible without plentiful energy. All three of our primary sources of energy are nonrenewable and fast running out, and there is no viable alternative online to replace them. The so-called "War on Terror" is and always was a resource war -- the final, desperate "grab the oil" bid.

So am I a little numb to it all? Sure. I know I have no real control over what's happening -- that nothing I can do will make any real difference whatsoever with respect to coming world events. I know that the death tolls we're seeing now are very probably only the tiniest fraction of the death tolls we can expect to see in the fairly near future. And despite the fact that it may seem like heresy to say it, I'm equally bothered by the deaths of all decent human beings, regardless of nationality.

Good question! Here's a start: seek accurate intelligence about the Hussein regime, ensure that we were not harming civilians with our sanctions regime (and thus turning them against us), and support the independence of Kurds in the north (which we didn't and don't do because Turkey is afraid of the Kurds in their own country). In these ways, we could have destabilized Saddam without militarizing the Sunnis and occupying southern Iraq. I also think we should look to the UN to deal with these matters, which is a lot more palatable to everyone than a direct US invasion.



The issue is self-determination. Liberty cannot be given to a people who don't really want it, but it can be taken by a people who demand it. And in the case of the Patriot Act, it can be taken from a people under dubious pretenses.
What democratic government was ever foisted on a people? If French enlightenment thinkers had invaded the American colonies and set up a democracy here, would we have developed the stable system we have in the US?
The Kurds have wanted a democratic government for quite a while; we can certainly support their efforts as we should support (diplomatically and financially) the efforts of pro-democracy groups around the world.

I would have to say, after reading through all 35 pages of this. I am Honestly and utterly appalled and horrified with the clinical talking head detachment that is ascribed to human lives from all involved. With only one exception to this suggestion, I would suggest going to thier local military recruiting center and putting thier money where thier stinkin mouths are. You talk of death and pain and torment in numbers, I see No bush kids in combat. and aside from ol billybob. Yall seem to be just a bunch of gutter intellectuals who seem to think that the bile spewed from thier mouths means a damn thing. If any of you know better put your mighty intellects to use and do somthing about it. Wait. that would involve getting off your asses and actually doing somthing. I am beginning to agree with aces. Nuke us all.

Flame on talking heads.

Doing what? What would you suggest, Amy? Should I go enlist (again) and help Uncle Sam kill foreigners for what's left of the world's oil? Do you suppose that would solve our problems?

I can't figure out whether I need to be angry about being singled out in this post, I will consult my margarita and get back to yall.

Of course, they are only part of it.

Ooooh, I get it. If someone leans left, it's okay, but if they lean right--that's clearly media bias.

Haha.. whatever. This is off topic anyway.

Actually No. I very much doubt that would do anything at all but get you killed. What I would suggest. If one felt so strongly about this would be to get involved in some way other then sitting (if the talking heads really are not just that. talking heads) on ones butt and browbeating everyone with an opinion that differs from thier own. Perhaps face to face discussions would be better. personalize it. But alas. You would need some kind of virtual world to do that because of the possibly vast distances involved. Bah. wishfull thinking. Like there will ever be a place like that. but If there were. and poor uneducated me was invited to join the debate. I think that somthing tangible may actually come from this mess of "Kill em all!" "were at fault" back and forth that has not shown one tangible change of opinion in some 500+ posts. as for my including billybob in my post at all. He showed that he had been involved in a way that was tangible. His military admission and i apologise if I seem to have singled him out. So what do ya say? More back and forth on the forums which gets nothing accomplished? Or something at least a little more "Real/virtual"?