Should reporters want Americans to win the war?
EmailThe New York Times has publicly reprimanded reporter Michael Gordon–a great journalist, author of the definitive Iraq War book Cobra II–for saying in a television interview that he thinks the US can still win the war. Gordon was on The Charlie Rose Show on January 8th and was asked if he believed "victory was within our grasp." Included in Gordon’s answer was this statement: “So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.” The Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, brought readers’ complaints about what Gordon had said to the paper’s editors. Philip Taubman, the paper’s Washington Bureau Chief, decided Gordon had violated a basic principle, writing in an e-mail Calame made public: “I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.” All this raises some interesting questions for those of us in the media, and for the public we serve. Should reporters want the US to win the war in Iraq? Whatever their personal judgment, should reporters say whether or not they believe the US can win the war? What role, if any, should patriotism play in the reporting of the United States at war? I’m just raising these questions, and inviting discussion of them. But all of us who have reported on this war–perhaps especially those who have been to Iraq and seen young Americans on the front lines–have grappled with these questions. In our time, the answers don’t come easy. It wasn’t always so. Many of the reporters who covered World War II were unabashed in sharing their patriotism–their "bias," if you will–with the public. Ernie Pyle, one of the greatest war correspondents, was a keen observer of war’s toll on the human spirit and of the everyday bravery of the American GI. He was no booster, though–nobody’s tool. But he was also capable of writing this about the Sicilian civilians he encountered in the Allied invasion of the island in 1942: "After all, we are still at war, and these people though absurd and pathetic are enemies and caused us misery coming all this way to whip them." No reporter today could write such a line. Times change, of course. It was a different war. But journalism changed, too. "Objectivity" became the lodestar of reporting, and a notion took hold that a journalist should cover events as neutrally as possible, without taking sides. This meant that reporters acted as independent observers and voices, in the hope of earning the trust and respect of the public. But it seems to me there was always a built-in tension in this approach. There is no such thing as a person who is so untethered to any community–national, racial, religious, etc–that she or he is able to gain a truly "objective" view of things. We are all contingent creatures. We all know this. And when your country is at war, the tension becomes acute. Thirteen days before President Bush launched the war in Iraq, he held a prime-time press conference. Support for war was running higher than 60 percent. People had very strong feelings about it. That night, I asked the president this question: "In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?" The president answered by reiterating his reasons for going to war. And I received an avalanche of hate mail from people who accused me of being unpatriotic, a traitor, a person who refelexively hated this country. The assumption these people made was that my question indicated I personally opposed the president’s policy. Maybe I did; maybe I didn’t. I’m not telling. But whatever my personal opinion, I believed then and I believe now the question was a supremely patriotic one. Direct questioning of national leaders in a time of war is one reason the United States wins wars. The war policy gets tested in the crucible of public examination and debate, assumptions are challenged, alternatives explored. It’s the process we Americans trust will bring us the best solutions to all our toughest problems. If anything, perhaps there hasn’t been enough of that in this war. And I take responsibility for my part in that, too. But the Times’ rebuke of Michael Gordon takes the issue to a deeper level. As American journalists, are we truly unbiased when it comes to the question of our country at war? Do we really not care whether or not the United States defeats the terrorist forces that attacked on September 11, 2001? Iraq is a different matter–but every reporter I’ve ever talked to on the subject has an opinion. The Times policy–and that of most other news organizations–is that we ought to keep those opinions to ourselves. Fair enough. But are we really not allowed to say we’d prefer to see our country victorious rather than defeated? What do you think?
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
The USA is a big country with 300,000,000 people in it. When you ask if reporters want “Americans” to win the war, who do you mean? I have nothing in common with the stockholders of Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon, Chevron, Boeing, Blackwater, etc. I am a working class American being screwed by the above right here at home. For you to imply that I should wish for the death and destruction being rained on the innocent people of Iraq because I was born in the same country as the greedy, vicious, evil stockholders of the above is insulting. Of course I don’t wish for “victory” (whatever that means, since they never define the phrase) of the war profiteering Americans. And neither should journalists, no matter what organization they are employed by.
Posted by: us citizen | January 31, 2007, 12:25 am 12:25 am
I Think Being An Impartial Observer Is Absurd. For Example On Tonights Show Inoticed Before Each Segment NL Frames It Like “..blasphemy Or Free Speech?” the Same With The Teaching Toddlers French And Chinese, “Smart Or Too Soon?” Or Something Like That. Why Cant It Be Both Or Neither Or Something Else Altogether? Every Issue Does Not Have Two Equal And Opposite Positions. Both Positions Can Not Be Equally Right Or Wrong. Therefore Your Analysis Of The Facts Should Reach A Conclusion. I Really Wish I Could Articulate This Better As I Feel This Is Such An Important Issue I Am So tired Of Equal Weight Being Given To Ridiclous Positions. Ernie Pyle Should Be Todays Standard Not The Past’s! We Need To Return To Journalism Not Robots Teleprompting Data. Did Ernie Pyle Earn And Keep Our Trust And Respect? What About Edward R. Murrow? Or Countless Others? Without Taking Sides How Can We Evolve? It Seems To Me You Earn Our Trust And Respect By Helping To Evolve The Arguments So Society Can Move Forward
Posted by: mah | January 31, 2007, 5:02 am 5:02 am
May I say as a former US soldier guaranteeing Europe’s freedom from Soviet invasion a great many years ago that only mentally diseased, girly-boy traitors (justly loathed and despised by the citizens of every nation on this globe) would ever wish the defeat of their own nation in time of war or any other time. When a reporter for the NY Times or any liberal rag has to betray his natural, healthy patriotic allegience in order to report on this war, then it is high time to stop working for those degenerate, disgusting slobs and shake the dust of Satan’s smoking hell off his or her feet.
The New York Times has always been biased against the best interests of America in a manner strongly resembling blatant treason, so it is not in the least surprising to learn of their very negative attitude toward a reporter’s virtuous display of patriotism.
I don’t doubt for a moment, though, that had said reporter’s comments been disparaging of U.S. efforts concerning anything of importance, the Times would not have rebuked him for what they consider the right kind of bias.
You see, there is no such thing as bias free reporting, and according to the Times and other liberal cess-pools, bias is only evil when it is pro-American bias. Anti-American bias is always good from their perspective because America is intrinsically evil and therefore deserves to be slandered and betrayed at every opportunity. Anything else is “morally” unacceptable according to the immoral, Godless liberal mind-set. I hope that’s perfectly clear.
Question: Do you think the American people should finance treasonous deceptions and lunatic ranting against our own nation by paying for subscriptions to liberal newspapers and liberal magazines? This battle-scarred old soldier says that such actions are a form of treason by enormous and deliberate stupidity. Such fools do not deserve to live free, nor will they for much longer.
Posted by: Sunny | January 31, 2007, 6:04 am 6:04 am
It is extremely ironic that a member of the press Michael Gordon-is having his first amendment rights to free speach restricted.
The Bush presidency in in major part caused by the fact that the press throughout the land did not thoroughly scrutinize him during the two elections. Particularly 00. Both years they were much more invasive and critical of the Democratic candidate.
Posted by: Ray Colton | January 31, 2007, 6:59 am 6:59 am
It is far better for the public to be told by reporters what their bias is. We know that each has some. The usual practice is to claim no bias but to slant stories toward the real one.
To be fair to those who try to be objective, some come close to succeeding. But others slant their stories unwittingly. They simply don’t see how anyone could think about an issue in any other way than the way they, themselves, think about it.
Posted by: Phil Sexton | January 31, 2007, 8:15 am 8:15 am
If you are a follower of economics, it seems pretty clear the a growing portion of the American public has no real “demand” for unbiased journalism. What else can explain the dominance of Fox News, the uprising of political blogs, and the diminishing circulation of old fashioned newspapers?
Phil S. says it perfectly, although I would go as far as to say that all “onjective journalists” do it: “slant their stories unwittingly.” I don’t think it is devious or malicious on the part of journalists, but like Terry notes, “There is no such thing as a person who is so untethered to any community.” Meaning all stories are unwittingly slanted. So why do old school media types like the New York Times still insist on objectivity from their workers? Makes no sense to me.
Chuck Klosterman has a different take. He wrote a great essay about objectivity in the media in his book “Sex, Drugs, and Coccoa Puffs.” His take is:
“Everybody seems to be concerned that journalists are constantly trying to slip their own political and philosophical beliefs into what they cover. This virtually never happens. And I am not being naive when I say this; it really doesn’t happen. There are thousands of things that affect the accuracy of news stories, but the feelings of the actual reporter is almost never one of them. The single most important impact of any story is far less sinister: Mostly it all comes down to (a) who the journalist has called, and (b) which of those people happens to call back first.”
It seems to me this is more apt as pertaining to local media coverage, but it is interesting coming from a person within the media. His main point is that journalism under deadlines will never capture the whole story, as well as pointing out that that most people insert their own biases into the stories they read; not that reporters are covertly slipping theirs in. Interesting point, and something we are seeing here on this blog. While Sunny thinks the NY Times is a liberal rag, I think Fox News is a conservative shrill. Are either true? No. Not really. But that is how we both perceive them.
I recently read an Obama peice in the NY Times(which I perceive to have a pro-Hillary bias), that I came away thinking the reporter had an anti-Obama bias. But you see, I already held that presumption going into the article, so not surprisingly, that is what I came away with. The same is true of Iraq stories, if you are already for the war, any story you come across that speaks to the nastiness of the war is perceived as a liberal critique bordering on treason, while on the other side any story that tries to trumpet the good that is resulting from U.S. intervention (I can’t believe I just wrote that), is perceived as propoganda by anti-war types (obviously, like me).
Basically, it’s a no-win situation. Reporters can’t be purely objective, because that is just impossible; and even if they could be objective, some portion of the public will never perceive it that way.
Posted by: Josh | January 31, 2007, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
The media seems to think it is unbiased by asking questions like your “arrogant” one. You can’t ask an unbiased question because it will always be interpreted as biased by someone. You must ask questions from both sides of an issue. Such as a follow up to your question to the President may have pointed out that almost all of those countries had their hands in Saddam’s cookie jar, which would explain “…what went wrong with so many governments.”
It seems the media is not capable of being fair and balanced–they can’t or won’t form questions from both sides of the debate, only those that promote their agenda.
Although I decry what happened to Gordon, but now you know what we fell like.
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2007, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
It seems quite clear that the problem with Gordon is that he dared to depart from the New York Times’ unwritten doctrine: do not support the Bush Administration in any way, shape, or form. Believe me, I have heard plenty of bashing of Bush and the U.S. in general, and I’m sick of it. Even John “Botched Joke” Kerry is now running around the world, saying “American have the ‘unfortunate habit’ of seeing things through an American lens.” Too bad a United States senator like Kerry can’t EVER seem to see anything from an American perspective! I agree with Terry Moran that complete objectivity from a reporter is virtually impossible. What gets under the skin of most viewers/readers/listeners is the high-minded hype from news organizations that have an obvious bias but pretend not to. The earlier comment about Fox News is right on–people know the “bias” and watch in droves. That should teach the BIg 3 something: that decades of being fed largely liberal views from networks hasn’t changed the opinions of most Americans one bit. Once they had an alternative, they took it. And I don’t think they’re coming back.
Posted by: Joy O | January 31, 2007, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Since when is a journalist or anyone else not supposed to have an opinion and express it when they are being interviewed. The NY Times aswell as other media outlets has an agenda. Apparently for the Times, one in which no deviation is allowed. There was another Times journalist interviewed on the Charlie Rose show who had another point of view that was critical of President Bush’s policies, where was the rebuke from the times?
This is the problem with the “inclusive” Left in this country. As long as you hold the same world and political views they do than you can do no wrong. If not, you are a non-thinking knuckle dragger unable to form an opinion on your own.
This is one knuckle dragger who gets his information from as many sources as possible, including the NY Times. This story only confirms what I’ve always thought of their reporting, “All the news that they see fit to print”
Posted by: Rob | January 31, 2007, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
I would be surprised if ‘deep down’ American reporters did not want the US to succeed in Iraq. A reporter is entitled to his opinion and, when it is appropriate, should be entitled to give them. When I listen to Washington Week, Chris Mathews, or THIS WEEK, I expect the reporter to be reporting but also adding his or her sound judgement. When I am watching WORLD NEWS or a listening to a news segment on ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I expect a news story without opinion, even though, I realize that it is impossible for a person to be truly objective. I know there is a difference between a commentator and a reporter but sometimes the person can do both without endangering his or her credentials. Since I didn’t hear the remarks sited, I don’t know the emotional context. However, just reading the words, I think that the NYT management overreacted. Keep up the good work
Posted by: J. W. "Bill" Sheehan | January 31, 2007, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
Censorship at its best. The Times is over the top left and this is an example of their glaring bias.
How ironic that free speech need not apply to their reporter ?
The news outlets in this country should be void of political opinion and try and report unfiltered news ( imagine that? ) to the citizens here.
It should not be right or left, just the facts.
Our country is made up of great people from all political views.
The news outlets should not cater to one side or the other.
The Times just showed their true colors.
Posted by: BDH | January 31, 2007, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
Editorial bias.
I have a friend who was hired to write editorials for a group of newspapers owned by a conglomerate.
After submitting his first editorial, he was told that it did not represent the opinion of the newspaper group and should be rewritten with their particular bias.
He respectfully declined and now works in a different profession.
Posted by: jm burkard | January 31, 2007, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
When someone opines, WE WANT AMERICA TO WIN THIS WAR, but we are unhappy with your conduct of the war” will I listen or read respectfully! Don’t see or hear that very often…
Posted by: Gary Beyer | January 31, 2007, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
There is a difference between voicing your personal opinion on Charlie Rose and Pinch Sulzberger actively engaged in undermining the war effort and providing support and comfort to the enemy as has been the activity of the New York Times. The Times has zero credibility on the issue. Their decision smacks of suppressing views counter to their desired outcome, the defeat of this nation.
Posted by: ken | January 31, 2007, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
“Should reporters want the US to win the war in Iraq? Whatever their personal judgment, should reporters say whether or not they believe the US can win the war?”
Apples and oranges. And, by the way, what does “win” mean, in this context?
Posted by: david | February 1, 2007, 10:13 am 10:13 am
American reporters are first of all, citizens of this country, or at least one would hope, and being a citizen they have a responsibility to this country. And loyalty to that country ought to come first! The time to object to a war is BEFORE it is entered into..not AFTER. If democracy is run by ‘the majority rule’ and the majority voted to enter into that war..then the die is cast so to speak and people ought to honor that committment by being loyal to the country under whose protection they travel in the world!!!
One may disagree with how the war was handled and one may want very much to see an end to the senseless killing that is going on all over the world..whether that be Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, whereever…it serves no useful purpose to make President Bush the scapegoat in all this. He did not enter this war without consulting congress and if Congress tho’t it was right then, why does it think it’s wrong now? Because all those weapons of Mass destruction were not found..? Since the CIA was so badly misinformed, how come Clintons administration doesn’t share the blame ‘in the press’? Why do reporters still love Clinton and hate Bush??
As I recall, there waa a report out before 9/11 by Senator Rudman and a few others that was largely ignored by the press and it showed how vulnerable this country was to an attack! So,why were we surprised when the attack happened? And how happy we were for a President Bush who said..”Bring it on” to our attackers..he gave us courage and determination and yes..Patriotism…!
The shameful thing in all this is that some people want to get elected so badly they will say anything, do anything, go against or for anything to acheive those ends regardless of their own personal opinions and beliefs!!!
And Hanoi Jane is still at it..and a few other celebs who seemingly want to ‘re live’ their youth by protesting all over again ala VietNam…But this enemy is not communism..it is deadly and it is fanatical and it WILL be brought to this country whether or not we fight in Iraq…
So, should reporters be loyal or not to their country and support our efforts? Of course they should. They have a moral responsibiltiy to do so!
If they disagree with how the policies of our country are carried out, then let them vote their disagreements..but please, let’s not support our enemies by letting them think they can win by undermining our every effort with slamming our president in the press!!!And slamming our policies and reporting on where and what and how we are doing everything over there..Some things really need to be classified!!!!! I’m all for a free press..but freedom doesn’t mean license…it means responsibility!!!!!!
Posted by: Phyl | February 1, 2007, 10:36 am 10:36 am
The New York Times is full of SHIT! This is true for NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and just about every other left-wing bull crap news organization. They are vested in the policy of defeat. I am an American serviceman and a war veteran. I am tired of slanted news reporting that humanizes these extremist animals.
A case in point from the most recent conflict in Lebannon: After an Israeli bombing raid, photographers from CNN or ABC (I can’t remember the crap-hole news agency) took pictures of a destroyed building. There were dead bodies including an infant. More pictures came out of a different building with the same baby. Hezbollah took a baby corpse and pre-positioned it in the photos. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP! Where is the outrage! Where is the outcry! But no! These friggin idiots in the media didn’t even want to call Hezbollah terrorists, rather, they called them freedom fighters!
It is imposible for these repoters to be objective, patriotic, or even offer the other side of the argument because they are stupid! The media has no problem offering aid and comfort to the enemy while compramising our country! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND! The only answer is that these journalists have Fart Gas in thier heads instead of a brain. Journalists should support our country, our President, and our troops. You are able to print your dumb-ass opinion because you enjoy the freedom this country offers and benefit from the strongest military ever in the history of the world. However, time in and time out you undermine the war and the President, while defending those freaking sub-human animals the terrorists and extremists. I will tell you this, if you lived under the rule of an extremist government, such as Iran, you would not be able to publish, say, broadcast anything.
May You All Kiss My Ass
2D Lt Adrian Reyes
Posted by: Adrian Reyes | February 1, 2007, 11:56 am 11:56 am
It’s ironic to see conservatives bash the NY Times. Other observers point out that few media outlets other than Fox did more to promote the war in the early stages, particularly Judith Miller — you know, the one who wrote all those stories espousing the administration’s “slam dunk” information on WMD.
Posted by: Paul | February 1, 2007, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
I’m not just slamming the NY Times, they all suck! By the way, there are WMDs in Iraq and there are WMDs in Syria and Iran as well. The bottom line is that at least FOX supports our country, our troops, and the mission of our military.
P.S. We need to make Mexico the 51st state and we need to overrun Syria, Lebanon, Iran and make them resorts.
God Bless The United States of America
Posted by: Adrian Reyes | February 1, 2007, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
You really have to worry ab’t the future of our country when people attack their fellow Americans, can’t spell, and use foul language in avain attempt to get their real point across–the medium IS the message–so the swearing indicates a lack of intelligence, culture and education.
Posted by: djconklin | February 8, 2007, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm
djconklin, I am intelligent, cultured, and educated.
OK DUMB ASS!!
Posted by: Adrian Reyes | February 9, 2007, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
In every mode of life we find what are called “bottom feeders”. This Reyes guy does not seem to be able to express his self without dredging the gutter. I applaud reporters who are not a part of status quo and seek to lift us up. An encouraging word at the right time goes a long way in whatever cause or profession.
Posted by: ebbarn | February 11, 2007, 4:45 am 4:45 am
No Bottom Feeder Here!
I just don’t like being insulted. Especially if I insulted no one in the process. My point in using strong language is that I am very angry. Everyone claims that they support our troops but not the war. I am tired of hearing this double talk! How can anyone support our miliyary and not the mission it does. That would be like saying I support my police department but they cannot arrest anyone. This does not make sense.
Secondly, if you say that you support our troops, then what support have you offered other than words. For example, have you sent a care package overseas, sent phone cards, or even written a letter to a GI. I dought that most people that say they support the troops actually do. Once again, I was mad when I posted. I don’t like being attacked and when I am, I attack back.
P.S. ebbarn, I have expressed myself just fine in my 14 plus year career in the military. I can express myself without dredging the gutter. So don’t think your better than me because you are clearly not. So get off of your high and mighty chair because someday you might get knocked off of it!
Posted by: Adrian Reyes | February 11, 2007, 10:25 am 10:25 am
Mr. Reyes,
I was reading your previous post and I wonder why there is one rule you consider appropriate for your self and not for someone else. How is “OK D*** A**!!” not an insult?
You did “dredge the gutter”. You did “attack”. Your “strong” language you seem to consider appropriate is, to repeat myself, “dredging the gutter”.
I do not sit on a high and mighty chair, but I doubt seriously you would be able to knock me off anything. It has been tried ending in failure. It appears you can dish it out, but then you must be prepared to take it.
BUT OF VASTLY GREATER IMPORTANCE, you are right on supporting the troops in word, but on the other hand saying you oppose their mission. The politicians on both parties have done nothing less than “comforted the enemy” as well as the media pundants who have taken the same position.
The public’s perception has been poisoned as effective as feeding strychnine to a baby. It is my position this is nothing short of treason, and I without doubt know there is Constitutional basis for that conclusion however unwilling for our government to do nothing but soft shoe around the issue.
I believe the escalation of violence in Iraq is primarily because the enemies of democracy smelled blood when self-serving pandering politicians have publicly trashed the troops’ mission. The enemy saw the effect that escalated violence brings their cause as far as United States politics and media coverage is concerned and pounced on it like a scavenger dog taking full advantage.
I am absolutely certain that these politicians have American GI’s blood on their hands and as this war and their irresponsible positions progress United States troops’ blood will cease to drip off the end of their fingers but will swell up in their palms and pour.
Not only have the troops been dishonored, damage has been done to the United States military that may take scores of years to repair if ever. In addition to this, it is my firm position that the security of this nation has been severely compromised leaving us more open to attack as the conflict, should the United States lose, would substantial move from the Middle East to within our borders. There unquestionably are terrorist cells here in the United States that are laying low waiting the opportunity to follow out their hellish mission.
You did hit on an inadequacy of my person. I have not done something personally like send a gift, a card, or even an email directly to support and encourage even one troop. I can do nothing but hang my head in regret and shame. I will see what I can do to correct this.
Posted by: ebbarn | February 12, 2007, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
Good post ebbarn, I did call lash out after I was insulted buy the guy first. You sound very intelligent but I stand by my point: Our troops and mission are synonimous. We can not do our mission with out our troops and there is no need for troops without a job to do.
Whether our citizens realize this or not, our involvement in the Middle East is something we had to do. As a current troop and war veteran, I don’t appreciate getting called stupid by our politicians, being called a rapist by the media, being spat on by our citizens, and being insulted first, by an anonymous person on-line. I can dish it out, and I have taken it as well.
The bottom line is that we are not united as a country. We question why our military does this and why the president does that. The reason being is that we are engaged in the single most important event of our time, the battle against extremists and terrorists. If they win, nothing else matters.
Posted by: Adrian Reyes | February 13, 2007, 11:26 am 11:26 am
Mr. Reyes:
Sir,
I won’t go into the details as to why this number is accurate, but what the United States and its interests face is a sect of Fundamental Islam who are totally committed to America’s annihilation. It is just not about Iraq and Iraq cannot be and never could be separated from this Hell found problem, but rather is a most integrate part of the many pieces that must be solved.
We live in perilous times and I dread the wrath to come if the political system in this nation does not deal with unwavering decisiveness to gain success in the war in Iraq.
I understand where you are coming from because I saw what you saw. I think we are of the same generation.
Posted by: ebbarn | February 13, 2007, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
I think American reporters should want the motherland (United States of course) to win this war. Instead of telling us the American public about the thousands of American soldiers dead. Why not say the greater amount of insurgents we’ve killed? Because we’ve killed way more insurgents. Hell we kill an insurgent everyday besides 2,873 American GI’s is nothing. In Vietnam 58,000 U.S. soldiers died we can win this war. I am not from the Vietnam era but we shouldn’t make the mistakes from the past. We must remain strong and that also means you the reporters must remain strong. If we cut and run right now the terrorist will think were bunch of pussies. We gotta prove them wrong people.
Posted by: theartofwar85 | February 20, 2007, 3:37 am 3:37 am
About winning the war. What does winning the war mean? What is our objective?
Posted by: Frank | February 21, 2007, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
Frank:
About winning the war.
If you were to ask a dozen people what they think “winning the war” involves it may be that there would be a dozen answers.
I guess it might best be what the minimum aspirations could be.
First and foremost a stable Iraqi government capable of dealing with the issues in particular related to sectarian violence, insurgencies, and foreign fighters.
All these circumstances involve a military solution as well as a social solution.
There must be jobs for the citizenry. For every job created that will most likely equate to one more person who is not part of sectarian violence or insurgency. He or she would only be hurting their self by being involved in the violence. This would also substantially reduce the effectiveness of foreign fighters.
There must be a strong police and military. It falls on the United States and allies to training the police and military to the point where they are able to carry out their commission to quail violence whether from within or without. This serves to provide a safe environment for the citizens to carry out their daily affairs.
Posted by: ebbarn | February 23, 2007, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Objectivity is an illusion journalists cite when they have successfully camouflaged their opinion through indirectness, certain rhetorics,leaving out facts and letting untruths given by guests go unchallenged, etc.
Well said is the statement “Media bias is as much in what is not reported,as what is.”
Your question can best be answered with another question: “Should reporters want American to lose the war?”
Posted by: Glenn | February 24, 2007, 1:26 am 1:26 am
Your question to Pres. Bush at the news conference regarding opposition from the world community.
We went to Iraq to over throw Saddam, a member of the Bathist (socialist) party. Then the socialist parties in charge of France, Germany, China, Arabs (Bathist),etc. opposed us. Go figure.
And might I add, the socialist press of America. Yes, you heard me correctly. Have you judged or evaluated your own opinions Mr. Moran, to see if they more closely align with the government given us by the founders or the government Marx advocated.
Most media in a blind poll sympathize or belong to the party of the Democrats which joined forces with the Socialist party of America in the 20′s or 30′s. And most professors also align themselves with the socialists and some proudly announce it to their classes and boldly declare they are communists. And many journalists graduate from their instruction. So are you a socialist or not?
Posted by: PatrioKat | February 24, 2007, 2:15 am 2:15 am
Since you brought it up, let’s talk about WWII Mr. Moran. Originally, there was much opposition and “isoaltion” theory to the war. As a result, our president, Roosevelt deferred to and met with Hitler and gave concessions. You know, the diplomatic route.
Therefore, the US, the mightiest military force did not join in action until Hitler’s army was mighty and he had occupied other countries. Eventually something like 58 million died as a result of that war.
Should a reporter be patriotic? It’s my opinion, Hitler should have been oppossed by journalists because his intentions were not honorable. Oh yah, he opposed and they died.
The journalists of America finally did become more patriotic as they realized “sometimes you just have to go out in the garden and pull the weeds and it is an honorable thing to do for the sake of all.” To be against weed pulling just for the sake of being against weed pulling is a ridiculous position. It’s my opinion fewer flowers would have died if we would have gotten ourself involved in weed pulling sooner, before Hitler became so entrenched
You know our military is just our international police force. Should reporters oppose the lawful actions of our police departments and demand they withdraw from crime ridden neighborhoods because it’s dangerous and some will die.
YOU SAID ASKING LEADERS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR IS THE REASON WE WIN THE WAR?
That’s attributing too much to the press and that sort of grand standing attitude and savior complexing has become a hazard to us rather than a help.
In the days of WWII, news did not instantly travel worldwide. And, news services were fewer than today. The way a reporter handles themself should differ according to the circumstances of each war or period of a war.
The constant questioning of leaders about Iraq publically is stupid in light of the statements of our enemies who say “we will make you leave like you did in Viet Nam” They think if they can hold out long enough, we will lose our will. Just think, they might be just about to collapse, when they watch Nightline in Bagdad that night showing Murtha calling for the removal of troops and the democrats shouting their anti-Bush rhetoric and reporters questioning the reason for war. Well, my quess is those watching from Bagdad look at each other and say “if we can only hold out a little longer, we will win.” Let’s try to kill even more people tomorrow. That will scare them more. Which is why the killing increased when the Democrats won the election.
Concerning Iraq, such reporter and news activity is encouraging the insurgents, etc to hold out just one more day, then just one more day, etc. In this war you are not helping us to win and if you think you are you are in complete denial.
Who wins the war? The one who breaks the other’s will to fight. Not the one who has the most and best reporter questions.
One more thing. How to tell if the leader advocating the war has honorable intentions and deserves support. He’s the one that doesn’t kill you for oppossing him.
Posted by: PatrioKat | February 24, 2007, 3:54 am 3:54 am
PatrioKat
Worth repeating.
“Who wins the war? The one who breaks the other’s will to fight.”
Posted by: ebbarn | February 25, 2007, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
All Americans should always want America to win all its wars.
Posted by: fred | February 26, 2007, 9:54 am 9:54 am