Does This Sound Like a Quagmire?

I saw an interesting report the other day that showed a scientific test proving that the network news shows were considerably more positive in their reporting of Senator John Kerry than they were of their reporting of President Bush. I believe the statistic was 69% comments made about Kerry were positive as compared to 45% of Bush. I guess that pretty much proves there really is a liberal-biased media out there. Kerry has repeatedly stated that Iraq is a “quagmire”. See if you agree after reading this article.

A friend sent me the following article, which is a report given by Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News correspondent. It came directly from Snopes.com, which is a reputable site in sorting out truth from lies and urban legend.

The buildings that AREN'T burning in Iraq... Probably each of you has
wondered if things could be as bad as Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, (and John Kerry) et al, have been painting it.

"They have a saying in the news business," Geraldo Rivera related this
week. "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn." And with
that introduction, he told a TV audience about the story that is being
systematically denied to our entire nation: the success story of
post-Saddam Iraq.

Are we losing some soldiers each week? Yes.

Is there some frustration in the public about electricity and water
service? Yes.

Are some Saddam Hussein loyalists throughout the land making trouble? Yes.

Has this opened a window for some terrorist mischief? Yes.

But that's ALL we hear. No wonder this country is in a mixed mood
about Iraq. If you hear about the buildings that are not burning,
though, it is a different story indeed.

Rivera is no shill for George W. Bush. But Bush, Condi Rice and Colin
Powell together could not have been as effective as Geraldo was Thursday night on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program.

"When I got to Baghdad, I barely recognized it," he began, comparing his just-completed trip to two others he made during and just after the battle to topple Saddam. "You have over 30,000 Iraqi cops and militiamen already on the job.

"This is four months after major fighting stopped. Can you imagine
that kind of gearing up in this country? Law and order is better;
archaeological sites are being preserved; factories, schools are being guarded."

But what about the secondhand griping that the media have been so efficiently relating about power, water and other infrastructure?

"To say that Iraq is being rebuilt is not true," answered Rivera.
"Iraq is being BUILT. There was no infrastructure before; we are
doing it. I just think the good news is being underestimated and
underreported."

At this juncture, one must evaluate how to feel about the voices telling us only about the bad news in Iraq, whether from the mouths of news anchors or Democratic presidential hopefuls. At best, they are under informed. At worst, their one-sided assessments of post-Saddam Iraq are intentional falsehoods for obvious reasons.

If I hear one more person mock that "Mission Accomplished" banner
beneath which President Bush thanked a shipload of sailors and Marines a few months back, I'm going to spit. That was a reference to the ouster of Saddam's regime, and that mission was indeed accomplished, apparently to the great chagrin of the American left. No one said what followed would be easy or cheap, and that's why the dripping-water torture of the cost and casualty stories is so infuriating.

Remember, we pay our soldiers whether they are in Iraq or in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina or Ft. Hood, Texas or wherever.

We should all mourn the loss of every fallen soldier. But context
cries out to be heard. Our present news media is not performing this
task. As some dare to wonder if this might become a Vietnam-like quagmire, I'll remind whoever needs it that most of our 58,000 Vietnam war toll
died between 1966 and 1972, during which we lost an average of about 8,000 per year. That's about 22 per day, every day, for thousands of days on end.

Let us hear NO MORE Vietnam comparisons. They do not equate. What I hope to hear is more truth, even if we have to wrench it from the mouths of the media and political hacks predisposed to bash the remarkable job we are doing every day in what was not so long ago a totalitarian wasteland.

"Local elections are under way across Iraq," Rivera reported. "Where
Kurds and Arabs have been battling for decades, things have been
settling down. Administrator Paul Bremer is doing a great job."

So does Geraldo think his media colleagues are intentionally painting with one side of the brush? "I'm not into conspiracy theories... but there's just more bang for your buck when you report the GI who got killed rather than the 99 who didn't get killed, who make friends, who helped schedule elections, who helped shops get open for business, who helped traffic flow again.

"The vast majority of Iraqis are very happy to have us there. I would
like to see a bit more balance."

This needs to be reported to the American public who are presently being duped. I expect the dominant liberal media culture to nitpick and attack Bush, and the Democrats to blast him with reckless abandon. But when that leads to the willful exclusion of facts that would shine truthful light on the great work of the American armed forces, that level of malice plumbs new depths.

I mostly agree with you on this, though it's not in any way surprising. Our media operates under the mantra "if it bleeds it leads." We don't get to see the whole picture. However I think the statement I quoted is unsubstantiated speculation and very unlikely to be true. Geraldo can no more make a definitive statement about how the vast majority of Iraqis feel than you and I can pretend to know what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's rhetoric.

Actually that piece is a reproduction of a 2003 editorial by Mark Davis who is a radio talk show host. He quotes Rivera from an appearance on Hannity and Colmes.


I would love to see this report and the scientific test that pretty much proves there is really a liberal-biased media. Do you happen to remember where you saw the report or who conducted the scientific test?

Actually, if you had watched Hannity and Colmes I believe it was Monday of this week, you could have caught the whole LIVE interview with Geraldo Rivera. For statistics you might want to contact Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes for their sources of information.

*smoochies*

I think I'm in love with you Ulalla, LOL, I used to be the only one combatting Chip back in Beta.... woo hoo!

Chip knows I love him...he worked so hard on my awesome skins!

The biggest problem is that when stories like this are done, many people immediately dismiss them as false because it doesn't match up with what the rest of the media is reporting.

The bottom line is that what Geraldo said is absolutely true (wow, did I really just say that? ). I've quit watching the news about Iraq because all it does is infuriate me. I prefer to speak to the many people I know that are there and working through e-mail and the occasional sat. phone call to get my info.

The majority of Iraqi people are happy to have us there and helping them to rebuild the county.....and that info came to me straight from the mouths of people working with them.

Your own source snopes.com lists the article you posted as an editorial by Mark Davis.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/rivera.asp

I also find it odd that a live interview from Monday was the source for an editorial published in 2003. Does Sean Hannity know something about time travel he isn't telling the rest of us?

Ohhhh, if you want time travel information you have to tune into Art Bell! He's the best source for that sort of information.

Hehe, it's mutual Ulalla... even if you do watch Hannity and Colmes

Snopes is no longer considered reliable:

http://shock-awe.info/archive/000858.php

Its sort of like in many workplaces. A person can do good hard work for ten years and barely get a pat on the back. But, one day this same person upsets a customer, via no real fault of their own, and get chewed out for being a screwup.

Snopes, as evidenced by its popularity, got plenty of pats on the back. It was not silently toiling away in the back room, unappreciated; it was the number one debunking site. It was the unquestioned authority for urban legends.

What brought it down was not some half-crazied irrational customer but itself. The mistake made was very much of its own doing. The fall of Snopes, quite like Nixon, was in large part due to the cover-up that followed.

It is unforgivable for a proclaimed source of accuracy to attempt to hide its own mistake. That can only mean it puts its own reputation ahead of truth and if reputation comes before truth, what else might as well?

We will never know if it would have eventually corrected itself even if it hadn't been called on it, but it certainly didn't jump to correct it when it was.

Im sorry prak, I wasnt really clear what I meant. I wasnt really referring to snopes. I was just trying to show that if things are fine it gets little notice. But as soon as it breaks, everyone knows about it.

There is no liberal media, there is no conservative media.. there is only corporate media.

Lets lay it out one more time so people understand (and this comes from my own experience of being there for quite some time)

There is no real news, there hasn't been for quite some time. There is only 'infotainment'.
And the slant of the infotainment depends on one thing and one thing only -- 'how many people can I get to watch this crap'

Consultants come in and tell you what 'target market' you are shooting for - the more people, the higher ratings, the higher the ratings the more money you can charge for local advertising during the time slots you own.

So - the as Chip correctly said 'if it bleeds, it leads' - people will tune into a disaster, it's that simple - the more dramatic and over the top you can make it sound in your open, the more people you'll maintain for that crutial first 15 minutes.. after that put on any old junk.

Go watch the news with that in mind, you'll see what I mean.
As the show goes on, it becomes less dramatic...


Always leave em smilin... put on a stupid dog story or cute bit of fluff at the end - the 'kicker' so people aren't depressed after the 30 minutes of disaster and mayhem you just showed.

Siggy

Ok now I'm home from work I can finish...

The reason the News is the way it is, is because they are all tailoring for thier markets -- even Fox, which has made a killing by catering to the right and extreme right.. that's thier target audience.

There is no 'liberal media' anymore - at least not on T.V. it comes down to money money money - and absolutely nothing else.

From the overall format of a show, to what stories are covered, right down to Anchors having to get approval on haircuts and changes in appearance - to what colors the viewers most react to. It's about pandering...

I wish it WERE Liberal - I'd find it easier to stomache most days.

Siggy.