Quote:
Originally posted by nostatic
no, I don't make it sound like an extreme measure. Just pointing out the irony of it. I don't have that big of an issue with it, and expect it. I just thought it was kinda funny that we would be paying for good press. To read some around here. there is so much good stuff going on over there the locals couldn't help but trip over it.
|
1) Any person with one-half of a mind knows not to believe in its entirety what is printed or broadcast. Iraqis aren't stupid. They know what is going on in their own back yard, whether for better or worse. Plus, no one said what was being written comprises all-out lies. I think this is a reaction taken on by the U.S. Military because they can't get decent coverage from our obviously partial, and in growing cases, anti-military news press.
2) A few wasted words published with the intent to quell ill-will to the soldiers is a hell of a lot better than losing more soldiers to this war - even if the soldiers are posing as news reporters. What's the difference between this and Stars and Stripes? Remember "Full Metal Jacket?" The actor in that movie was a S&S photog and carried an M-16. All reporters were soldiers first, reporters second.
3) Paying for press coverage. It happens every day in this country in every media market.
Overall, I think what the military is doing in this regard is a wise decision. And I think papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times should look at their own poor news judgment and practices (i.e. embellishing or all-out lying) in their news writing, rather than lambaste an effort that might expedite an end to the war.
After all, the U.S. soldiers aren't confectioners, but no one's b!tching about some grunt handing out candy bars to a bunch of Iraqi kids...