The Media Wants Us to Loose

Why does the shape of the coverage, and the omission of good news, matter? Because, as Ralph Peters notes: “Our enemies know the Marines won’t quit. But they hope you will.”

Michael Barone writes that it’s all the bad news that’s fit to print. He also asks: "How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?"
But back then, the press wanted us to win.

hat tip

I think it is pretty clear the media wants the US to loose the battle in Iraq. The question is why?

No one is obliged to be cheerleaders for the Administration.

An example of bias:

**Body armor Redux **

This headline in the NYTimes caught my eye : U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor. This is the opening sentence:
For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.

Now I would hate to accuse the “newspaper of record” of displaying bias in it’s reporting, but it would have been equally as accurate to say this: U.S. upgrading Body Armor to protect servicemembers.


For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is upgrading what is already the best body armor in the world to further protect American troops. The current armor, which has saved countless soldiers lives, is being upgraded with better protective inserts, in response to the increased lethality of insurgent attacks, primarily from weapons being provided to the insurgents by Iran.

Both stories would have been equally accurate. Both are biased in a particular direction. At least I admit it.

The rest of the piece is very interesting for those interested in body armor:

topmustang.blogspot.com/2005/08/body-armor-redux_112417999333880490.html

The press hates Bush. I know that’s pretty simplistic, but to them it’s more important that Bush look bad than victory in Iraq and the global war on terror. Sad but true.

…good to see somethings never change…

…hi gillam…

…i believe the media just wants the truth, as do the american people.
IMHO
http://jeannero.free.fr/dessins-animes-2/SpaceGhost.gif

[quote=gilliam]This isn’t a football game, the stakes are very high. Why is the media consistantly giving aid and comfort to terrorists? Maybe you know the answer, I don’t.
[/quote]

Which American newspaper has thrown its editorial support to the Insurgency?

[quote=Richardols]Which American newspaper has thrown its editorial support to the Insurgency?
[/quote]

The New York Times has done everything it can to undermind the moral of our troops. But don’t take my word for it, ask any deployed soldier who has read the paper.

[quote=gilliam]The New York Times has done everything it can to undermind the moral of our troops. But don’t take my word for it, ask any deployed soldier who has read the paper.
[/quote]

Your statement was that the American press constantly gives aid and comfort to terrorists. That’s a very serious charge, in fact, an accusation that the American press consists wholly of traitors.

“Undermining the morale of our troops,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, is not the same as treason against the United States. And I do read the Times and fail to see their treason.

The Press is under no obligation to be a cheerleader for the Administration.

[quote=Richardols]Your statement was that the American press constantly gives aid and comfort to terrorists. That’s a very serious charge, in fact, an accusation that the American press consists wholly of traitors.

“Undermining the morale of our troops,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, is not the same as treason against the United States. And I do read the Times and fail to see their treason.

The Press is under no obligation to be a cheerleader for the Administration.
[/quote]

Actually, it is pretty close to treason. If this were 1941, it would be treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is treason (see the Constitution of the United States). In a gurilla war, like what is happening in Iraq, whoever quites first looses. Underminding moral at home and with the troops in the field is crucial to the terrorists winning. Those who aid the enemy in this endevor are giving aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war.

What goes on at Air America is no different than what Lord Ha Ha did during WWII. He was hanged for treason after the war.

:rotfl: And who is suggesting otherwise?

Tis’ a fallacsious argument to suggest questioning bias, real or imagined in any newspaper = cheerleading for the Administration.

[quote=gilliam]Actually, it is pretty close to treason. If this were 1941, it would be treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is treason (see the Constitution of the United States). In a gurilla war, like what is happening in Iraq, whoever quites first looses. Underminding moral at home and with the troops in the field is crucial to the terrorists winning. Those who aid the enemy in this endevor are giving aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war.

What goes on at Air America is no different than what Lord Ha Ha did during WWII. He was hanged for treason after the war.
[/quote]

So what you are really saying is that if you agree with the administration and shout about it, your a PATRIOT; but if you disagree with the administration and shout about it your a TRAITOR!!!

Interesting take on democracy and freedom of speach!!!

[quote=gilliam]Actually, it is pretty close to treason. If this were 1941, it would be treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is treason
[/quote]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 7 May 1918

We are under no obligation to be cheerleaders for Bush’s Iraqi Adventure.

[quote=walstan]So what you are really saying is that if you agree with the administration and shout about it, your a PATRIOT; but if you disagree with the administration and shout about it your a TRAITOR!!!

Interesting take on democracy and freedom of speach!!!
[/quote]

What do you expect from “My President, right or wrong!” Republicans?

[quote=walstan]So what you are really saying is that if you agree with the administration and shout about it, your a PATRIOT; but if you disagree with the administration and shout about it your a TRAITOR!!!
[/quote]

Nope, not at all. Tis’ a fallascious response you’ve offered to gilliam’s accurate account of WW2 and treasonous behavior.

Interesting take on democracy and freedom of speach!!!

Not really, Even in peacetime we’re always responsible for the things we say. Wartime is no different.

[quote=walstan]So what you are really saying is that if you agree with the administration and shout about it, your a PATRIOT; but if you disagree with the administration and shout about it your a TRAITOR!!!

Interesting take on democracy and freedom of speach!!!
[/quote]

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. You might want to read this:

house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[quote=thestickman]Nope, not at all. Tis’ a fallascious response you’ve offered to gilliam’s accurate account of WW2 and treasonous behavior.

[/quote]

I assume from this then that Joseph P. Kennedy was tried for treason and incarcerated during WW2 because of his opposition to it?

In 1938, he was appointed as the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James (United Kingdom). Kennedy, of Irish descent, had little concern for the British, sympathized somewhat with the America Firsters led by Colonel Charles Lindbergh and others who wanted no war with Hitler, supported a policy of United States isolationism, and had no problem with Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. He resigned from office in 1940 as he disagreed with Roosevelt’s determination to involve the USA in the Second World War.

Oooops… no. What a suprise!!!

[quote=gilliam]Actually, it is pretty close to treason. If this were 1941, it would be treason.
[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t. The Constitution hasn’t changed since 1941 about that.

U.S. courts convicted only three people of treason during that war; “Axis Sally,” who, charged with 10 counts of treason, was convicted of one, and served 10 years; “Tokyo Rose,” convicted of treason, sentenced to a prison term, released, and then pardoned by President Ford; and Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting US POWs, but had his sentence commuted to life by Pres. Eisenhower because of his unease with the verdict.

Treason is a very difficult crime to prove. There must be at least two witnesses to the crime. Our country has a extremely narrow definition of treason because the Founding Fathers sought to protect Americans from the blunt instrument that European rulers had used against their political enemies.

Kennedy backed off when war started.
[/quote]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.