Ingraham smackdown of Carville/Gregory

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Bonehead

Ok, just wondering where you stood today...

[nostatic]

have YOU been there?!?! How do you know what the truth is?

I go by what my best friend tells me...I've known him for years, through thick and thin. He's been "in theater" for over a year now, all over Iraq, living on bases in hooches, not in hotels or on a "whirlwind tour." You can read what he says here:

http://www.irqniblog.com

I know him and his biases. I know what he says is pretty damn accurate. I've talked with him offline quite a bit. There are some things that are going right, but a lot that isn't, and most of the troops he's talked with and interacted with in a DAILY basis aren't pleased.

But you can continue to believe the gospel according to LI, because of course YOU want to.

[Nathans_Dad]

Nostatic I don't mean to jump into the middle of your argument with Mul here, but I think that Ingraham's position is being misrepresented. Mul's position is not Ingraham's position.

Basically all LI is saying is that the news is reporting nightly on the latest IED or finding new bodies from reprisal killings yet they never report on the reconstruction of Iraq, building schools, building hospitals, building roads, Iraqis opening stores, etc.

Basically it's all bad and no good. Of course that type of reporting influences public opinion since 99.9% of the public get their idea of what is happening in Iraq from the news. Ingraham is just asking them to be a little more broad in their coverage of some of the human interest type stories or reporting on the progress being made.

Funny quote from Chris Matthews last night in regards to what Ingraham said. It was something like "How can you report on a war without reporting the deaths? Reconstruction isn't news, is it??"

I think reconstruction and progress being made IS news, don't you?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by nostatic
have YOU been there?!?! How do you know what the truth is?

I go by what my best friend tells me...I've known him for years, through thick and thin. He's been "in theater" for over a year now, all over Iraq, living on bases in hooches, not in hotels or on a "whirlwind tour." You can read what he says here:

http://www.irqniblog.com

I know him and his biases. I know what he says is pretty damn accurate. I've talked with him offline quite a bit. There are some things that are going right, but a lot that isn't, and most of the troops he's talked with and interacted with in a DAILY basis aren't pleased.

But you can continue to believe the gospel according to LI, because of course YOU want to.

Link doesn't work ... I'd like to read it, esp since you vouch for him

That said, we may be placing a bit too much importance on what the grunts are saying and thinking. That's important to know, for sure, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. The larger issues of the war and the political situation in the country is available to all of us. I know who the players are, I know their histories and alliances. And it's not pretty. Doesn't matter whether I am in country or not.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
But you can continue to believe the gospel according to LI, because of course YOU want to.

You are right, Todd...I am trying to mislead you, and it is the champagne swilling, caviar gorging, insulated lefties in their ivory towers that are telling you the truth.

[Nathans_Dad]

Rodeo on the Iraq War: It doesn't matter what the people on the ground think, we know what's going on.

Rodeo on Katrina: Why wasn't Bush there on the ground, talking to the people who actually knew what was going on? If he had just talked to the people on the ground he would have gotten better info!

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Rodeo on the Iraq War: It doesn't matter what the people on the ground think, we know what's going on.

Rodeo on Katrina: Why wasn't Bush there on the ground, talking to the people who actually knew what was going on? If he had just talked to the people on the ground he would have gotten better info!

Been taking lessons from Karl Rove? You need to refine the lie a bit though. You can't say "Rodeo says" this or that, because everyone will just call you on the lie.

You need to say it like this: "Some say they don't care about what the troops on the ground are doing. Some say it doesn't matter what our brave men and women think. Not me, I care about our troops."

Got it? If you're going to tell blatant lies, at least do it artfully, like our president.

[Nathans_Dad]

Does this mean you think that it actually does matter what people on the ground think or no?

I guess I'm just confused because you usually talk alot about thinking for yourself and finding out what the real truth of things are, but now you seem to be saying that you are happy with whatever the press decides to feed you and what is actually going on on the ground doesn't matter...

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Does this mean you think that it actually does matter what people on the ground think or no?

I mean what i said. Not your lie about what I said.

Originally posted by Rodeo
...we may be placing a bit too much importance on what the grunts are saying and thinking. That's important to know, for sure, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.

[speeder]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You are right, Todd...I am trying to mislead you, and it is the champagne swilling, caviar gorging, insulated lefties in their ivory towers that are telling you the truth.

You have a bizarre, almost medical condition that does not allow you to discern your biases from "facts is facts".

There is nothing wrong in itself from having strongly held beliefs, even being extremely opinionated, (it's still a free country-barely), but to not recognise your own subjective leanings and their effect on your perceptions of a news story is scary. I know that you are going to accuse me of the same in that old, "I know you are, but what am I" level of discourse that you employ but seriously, give it some thought.

I have no problem gathering info from various news sources while recognising bias in the reporting. In order to buy into the current neocon line of thinking one has to believe that the entire mainstream legitimate journalism profession in the U.S. and the world is on a massive, well coordinated mission to report falsehoods only from Iraq and that the carnage we see on a daily basis on our front page isn't really happening. That things are going well in Iraq, it is the journalists' fault for misreporting this. This is a twisted, paranoid, cultist way of thinking, and that is putting it politely.

Have you ever read a newspaper in your life? If it bleeds it leads, period. The puppy dog stories only make it in on a day when nobody shoots up a Denny's, "a slow news day is a good news day", as the old saying goes. There hasn't been a slow news day in Iraq since Bush rode into town. Deal with it.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, so what is actually occurring in Iraq is an important piece but we place too much importante on what is really going on when we should be focusing on....what again? What piece of the puzzle is more important than a true and accurate assessment of what is actually occuring in the country itself?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ok, so what is actually occurring in Iraq is an important piece but we place too much important on what is really going on when we should be focusing on....what again? What piece of the puzzle is more important than a true and accurate assessment of what is actually occurring in the country itself?

Read it again and try real hard not to misquote it, ok? Where do I say what's "actually occurring in Iaq" is not important to me? Look hard ....

Originally posted by Rodeo
...we may be placing a bit too much importance on what the grunts are saying and thinking. That's important to know, for sure, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.

Nowhere? Ok ... let's move on then.

What's "actually occurring" cannot be gleaned solely from one grunt's blog. That's one piece of the puzzle (sound familiar?), but it's only a piece. If a marine got a group hug in Basra today, that may be important to know, but that information needs to be processed along with other pieces of information.

Not too difficult to understand, is it?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Rodeo
[BThat said, we may be placing a bit too much importance on what the grunts are saying and thinking. That's important to know, for sure, but it's only one piece of the puzzle. The larger issues of the war and the political situation in the country is available to all of us. I know who the players are, I know their histories and alliances. And it's not pretty. Doesn't matter whether I am in country or not. [/B]

Ok, Rodeo, maybe I took the above statement wrongly. When I read this it sounds to me like you are saying that all the info you need is already out there and what the guys on the ground think doesn't matter as much. If this isn't what you meant, then I guess I misunderstood your post.

And I actually agree with your statement that one guy's blog or one Marine's experience isn't as important as the collective experience. I agree that everything should be covered. Problem is everything ISN'T being covered.

We NEVER see the marine getting a hug. We NEVER see the Iraqi children getting healthcare. We NEVER see the new roads and power plants and hospitals and schools and police stations being built. We NEVER see interviews with Iraqi Army officers. Seems the nightly news is too busy updating the US body count on a daily basis to broadcast those things.

[Rodeo]

I hope this doesn't bust your brain, but even the "collective experience" of the military in Iraq doesn't begin to tell the whole story.

It doesn't cover the separatist plans of the Kurds; it doesn't cover the guy that got shot for giving the wrong haircut or the girl killed for wearing the wrong clothes. It doesn't cover the meetings between the P.M. and al Sistani divvying up power. It doesn't cover the plans being made by the Pentagon for those grunts, and it doesn't cover what the Mullahs in Iran are planning and doing. It doesn’t cover the political issues in Washington that will have a major impact on those grunts’ lives.

So I'm interested in the grunt's perspective. But whether it’s positive or negative, I understand that it's only a piece of a much larger puzzle.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, well personal insult on my intelligence aside...

Do you have a comment on what the thread is about and what I brought up in the above post, i.e. the media never covering any of the progress or positive stories on the news?

[nostatic]

www.iraqniblog.com

sorry for the bad link. Good read imho. The guy is in the thick of it, and has been all over the country. And not in a nice cozy security blanket either...

[Rodeo]

I think the news’ emphasis on "events" reporting leads inescapably to body counts. I think that's the nature of news, in Iraq and everywhere else. I sat at a foundation meeting last night for three hours discussing all the good things we did in the last year, and all the good things we plan for next year.

We had one local news story during the entire year. Got home from the meeting, and the local lead story at 11:00 was a car crash.

That's just the way it is. It’s not a media conspiracy to show death and destruction in Iraq, it’s a media obsession everywhere to show death and destruction. Followed closely by sex.

[Moneyguy1]

Honest debate requires an open mind.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok Rodeo, I can believe your assertion that the media has a vested interest in showing death and destruction, it's the sad state of news today. I personally think they happen to have a certain political bias as well, but I'll leave that out of the conversation.

Would you agree with me, then, that the media should be open and honest with the American people? I would think a disclaimer at the start of each newscast would be appropriate. Something like this:

"Dear viewer. Before you watch this newscast, please be advised that our coverage of the news is heavily slanted towards anything where someone is hurt, maimed or killed. We don't cover stories that talk about good things because we want ratings, and you the American public have an unquenchable thirst for death, gore and destruction. Please take our newscast accordingly with this statement in mind."

Somehow the opposite is true though, every single reporter I have seen doggedly defends their news broadcasting as presenting a fair and representative view of the news. They refuse to acknowledge what is an obvious slant to even the most cursory viewer. If they would acknowledge their bias towards reporting only bad news, then the public might be able to take the newscast with the mountain of salt it should be taken with. Instead they portend to report the full story, which is comical to say the least.

[Rodeo]

I had one of those eureka moments, must have been 10 or more years ago. "Rosanne" was the No.1 show in the country. It was all you ever heard about, Rosanne, Rosanne, Rosanne.

"Man, I gotta watch this show, see what's going on, what all the fuss is about."

It sucked. No, the term sucked doesn't begin to describe how bad it was. It was just crude and stupid and inane. It was unwatchable.

So I'm on a different wavelength than the majority of American people, that's what that episode taught me. I take that into account when consuming things meant for mass consumption. The news is one of those things.

Sure they could put disclaimers, but the only people that would pay attention to them are the ones that don't need them.