Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the U.S. Casualty Rate Higher Because of the AP?
Townhall.com ^ | Dec 8, 2005 | Todd Manzi

Posted on 12/08/2005 5:21:20 AM PST by digger48

The Associated Press has caused some U.S. soldiers to lose their lives. The terrorists know they cannot defeat us militarily. They understand the only way they can win is if our military withdraws because the American people stop supporting the war.

Terrorists are trying to get their message across to us, but instead of issuing press releases, they are killing our troops.

We know how important the will of the American people is regarding the war. Doesn’t the will of the terrorists matter also? If their cause looks lost, they will attack less. If they think they have a chance to win, they will attack more. The irresponsible, antiwar-biased reporting from the Associated Press over the last four months can only have encouraged our enemy to keep trying. Terrorists may have been given the false hope that all is not lost for them.

The facts:

The Rasmussen Poll taken July 13th and 14th indicated 44% of Americans thought the U.S. was winning the War on Terror.

Meantime, the AP’s August coverage of Cindy Sheehan had an extreme antiwar bias. AP reporters propped up Sheehan and issued dispatches that looked more like editorial commentary than news. Like the terrorists, the antiwar movement was motivated to act based on the prospect of getting press coverage. The AP and the mainstream media claimed people rallied to support Sheehan, but they actually scampered down to Crawford because they knew receptive reporters were waiting to greet them. A news cycle friendly to the antiwar movement was in place, and like moths to a flame, the antiwar zealots flew to Camp Casey.

The antiwar campaign worked. The Rasmussen Poll taken August 10th and 11th indicated a 6% drop down to 38% of respondents who thought we were winning the war. Knowing he had to respond, the president planned an aggressive push for his message. Unfortunately, the hurricanes blew the news cycle in a different direction, and President Bush was forced to wait to make his case.

The president’s speech on October 6th at the National Endowment for Democracy marked the beginning of the administration’s attempt to counter the damage caused by antiwar reporting in August. The speech was followed by the release of an intercepted letter from our enemy’s leadership. A couple of days later, on October 13th, President Bush had a video teleconference with troops in Iraq. The AP did not report anything of substance about the message contained in these three events. Instead, they created a false news cycle regarding the supposed staging of the teleconference.

The effect of AP’s antiwar emphasis showed up in the Rasmussen Poll taken October 15th and 16th. There was only a 1% recovery in the numbers: 39% of Americans thought we were winning the war. In early August, Sheehan’s antiwar message was packaged for maximum impact, and poll numbers went down. In early October, the president’s message was not reported and poll numbers stayed down.

In the coming months, the message of congressional Democrats and the antiwar movement were given maximum media attention. The Senate shutdown, Rep. John Murtha's comments, and constant updates of the U.S. death toll, etc. were touted. Conversely, the AP stifled the president’s message. President Bush’s October 25th speech, approval of the Iraqi constitution, President Bush’s Veterans Day speech, Congress’ vote against Murtha, Sen. Lieberman's positive reports from Iraq, etc. were ignored or reported with negative antiwar-bias.

In total, a false impression, a much more negative impression, of American support for the war was conveyed to our enemy. The truth, which could not be ignored, is reflected in President Bush’s powerful speech on November 30th. What did the AP think of the speech? “[The] speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy.” What did the American people think of the speech? The Rasmussen Poll taken November 30th and December 1st indicates 48% of Americans now believe the U.S. is winning the war. The best explanation for the nine-point bounce from the October poll is clearly that the speech provided new information to a large portion of the population.

Anyone who looks at the events, the news coverage and the Rasmussen polling information must conclude the American people were misinformed about the war. Ironically, if another industry were to under deliver to this extent, it would be news. The AP would be all over it and newspapers would print it.

Newspapers are in a position to hold the AP accountable to objectivity. Even if they are rooting for the terrorists to win, you think they would at least be concerned about the credibility of their product. For some reason, the newspaper industry does not care that the AP is biased. Newspaper editors are like ostriches with their heads in the sand.

I asked Scott Bosley, the executive director of American Society of Newspaper Editors, what he thought about the Associated Press’ antiwar bias. Bosely’s opinion:

“The AP is not biased. It covers stories episodically, attempting to put them in context.”

The consequence of the AP’s coverage of the War on Terror: they have allowed themselves to become a pawn of our enemy. The terrorists are as cunning as they are evil, and they have incorporated media coverage as part of their strategy to win the war. Intuitively, the AP and the rest of the mainstream media understand that the promise or hope for press coverage influences behavior. After all, every year the public relations industry spends billions of dollars hoping to position their clients’ message in the media.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bloodontheirhands; iraq; mediadisinformation
It's time to put the blame where it belongs. The media AND the Democrats are costing lives with their rhetoric.
1 posted on 12/08/2005 5:21:21 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: digger48
The AP didn't publish this.  Your link is misleading.
 
Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

2 posted on 12/08/2005 5:23:06 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Admin Moderator

I mistakenly attributed this to the AP, it is from Townhall.com,

Would you please change, if possible, or delete thread?

Sorry.


3 posted on 12/08/2005 5:24:16 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

sorry, trying to correct.


4 posted on 12/08/2005 5:25:03 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

How do I get this thread pulled?


5 posted on 12/08/2005 5:31:51 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: digger48

I understood what you were doing. Thanks for this post.


6 posted on 12/08/2005 5:33:00 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: digger48

You must hit the abuse button. Explain the problem on that page. That works faster than pinging the Admin.


7 posted on 12/08/2005 5:33:58 AM PST by Jemian (Free societies are peaceful societies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: digger48
The AP is anti-American along with the other news media and supports the terrorist. They have an agenda and that is to have the United States suffer a defeat in Iraq so that the terrorist can take over. They care nothing for America or our way of life and it is their mission to make Islam seem to be a religion of peace and to degrade and kill as many American military and civilians as possible.

They and the other news media are TRAITORS. While we have freedom of the press we do not have anything in the Constitution that says the press can commit treason which is what they are doing.
8 posted on 12/08/2005 5:36:06 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

To digger48: no apology needed as far as I'm concerned. The article makes a good and accurate point.


9 posted on 12/08/2005 5:37:54 AM PST by Orca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: digger48

This is a good piece but it is on Townhall.

The attribution should be changed


10 posted on 12/08/2005 5:42:46 AM PST by bert (K.E. ; N.P . Chicken spit causes flu....... Fox News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Here's the correct link: Correct Link to story on Townhall.com
11 posted on 12/08/2005 5:43:05 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Orca

ok,, NOW we're back on track!

We need to loudly explain to the American people that the opposition to this war is purely political and is killing and maiming our soldiers, and emboldening the enemy.

John Kerry, for the second time in his life of insignificant accomplishments, has the blood of soldiers and innocents, on his hands.


12 posted on 12/08/2005 5:43:08 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Regardless of source, this article is right-on.

“The AP is not biased. It covers stories episodically, attempting to put them in context.”

But, they choose WHICH stories to report -- omitting those which do not fit their agenda, trumpet those which do.

The "objective" MSM is analogous to your mailman deciding which letters to deliver and which you must not read.

13 posted on 12/08/2005 5:45:19 AM PST by Zman516 ("Allah" is Satan, actually.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; bert

sorry.....too much Maxwell House this morning.

Got caught up in the "thrill of the post"


14 posted on 12/08/2005 5:45:57 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Mistakes happen.  You can imagine my disappointment "OMYGODICAN'TBELIEVETHATAPWOULDACTUALLYADMIT... Hey, TownHall?"
 
Good article tho' thanks for posting.
 
Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

15 posted on 12/08/2005 5:46:56 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Is the U.S. Casualty Rate Higher Because of the AP?

Yes, the Media is causing deaths with all their 'hate the military' and the 'USA' rhetoric.

16 posted on 12/08/2005 5:48:37 AM PST by Dustbunny (Main Stream Media -- Making 'Max Headroom' a reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny

This thing COULD be winding down, if we didn't have to focus so much effort on fighting the enemies in the press AND the insurgent Democrats in Congress.


17 posted on 12/08/2005 5:53:44 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: digger48

Excellent article. Thanks.


19 posted on 12/08/2005 5:57:58 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Landru; ForGod'sSake; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Copernicus; Mr. Mulliner; thesummerwind; ...

This is an excellant piece containing researched facts linking the AP antiwar bias to public opinion.

Although Rasmussen polls are themselves biased, the bias is antiwar. Change in the antiwar bias among an already biased sample is indicative of the AP force.


20 posted on 12/08/2005 5:59:58 AM PST by bert (K.E. ; N.P . Chicken spit causes flu....... Fox News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

The truth is that AP is no worse than all the others in the MSM, they are all guilty, and add the democrat party into that equation.


21 posted on 12/08/2005 6:00:28 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

100% AP has DIRECTLY caused death.

That lunatic nobel prize speech is getting LONG airplay in the european news media.


The USA is a target of those who resent the USA's strength.


22 posted on 12/08/2005 6:12:56 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Agreed, the media has performed CPR on the so called "insurgency" numerous times. That is why winning this will be difficult, for example, the UK has been a settled nation for quite some time now and someone still managed to bomb the tube. When and if we decide to leave Iraq the media will cover the first guy that throws a firecracker out of his car window as the mastermind behind the humiliating American defeat. Count on it!


23 posted on 12/08/2005 6:27:24 AM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: digger48

DITTO !!!!!!!!!!!


24 posted on 12/08/2005 6:29:50 AM PST by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, Over there, we will be there until it is Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48
The AP have both American and Iraqi blood on their hands, and along with many prominent Democrat politicians and celebrities are responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq because they give encouragement to the Terrorists by constantly high lighting the terrorist attacks and over stating their effectiveness, while never once giving due mention of the positive work the Coalition has done for both Iraq and the Middle East.

Show me a SINGLE news story from AP that focuses on improvements in Iraq, it can't be done not because there are none but because AP has a political agenda that is more important to them then anything else. AP and company most definitely have blood on their hands, that is not even a questionable.
25 posted on 12/08/2005 6:33:21 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (ETERNAL SHAME on the treasonous Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
100% AP has DIRECTLY caused death

I believe that reliance on the AP as a news source is causing the death of the print media. I have several friends (my wife for one) who dropped daily delivery of the local paper. They all see the syndicated news as BS. "Al-Media"

26 posted on 12/08/2005 6:45:27 AM PST by Fielding ("Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark" Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: digger48
I'm sorry-- am I the only conservative who thinks this type of article is plain ridiculous? On the one hand, of course there has been a flourishing of anti-war sentiment being expressed within the media. It's taken them quite a long time for the media to get the courage to report the message of the anti-war crowd. The anti-war people were there long before the Dems started making an issue of it, and there was little coverage of their attempts to express their opinions. Now that those in Congress are piping up, the AP is a little more liberated to print about the opposition to the war. They're in the business of *selling* news to a buying public. They weren't selling an anti-war message when there was the perception that everybody was lock-step in line behind the president.

But to suggest that the AP and the Dems "are costing lives with their rhetoric" is quite the rhetorical feat in itself. By implication, isn't Bush's rhetoric about "staying the course" also costing lives, in a more direct manner?

If the terrorists are as whacko as some portray them, they will continue fighting no matter if they perceive they can win or not. Suicide bombing is inherently a losing strategy, as is fighting such an equipped military force as the US. They will continue fighting and dying in unfathomable numbers, and will take the rest of the Iraqi population with them as collateral damage, no matter what the AP does.

For years during Vietnam before the media turned on the cause, they still ferociously fought what they thought was an imperialist invasion, and millions died in the process. No amount of rhetoric of freedom and democracy could have possibly changed that.

I don't care what Cindy Sheehan says. If anyone is actually listening to her opportunism for fame, or for that matter, Bush's same tired speeches about the torch of freedom, we have a bigger problem of intellectual creativity on our hands. The truth of the matter is, months and months later, the Iraqi forces are still not ready to fight, and what does that say about our efforts? How long will this last? How long before we develop a plan B?
27 posted on 12/08/2005 7:10:32 AM PST by sandistained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert
"I asked Scott Bosley, the executive director of American Society of Newspaper Editors, what he thought about the Associated Press’ antiwar bias. Bosely’s opinion: 'The AP is not biased. It covers stories episodically, attempting to put them in context.'"

Oh geshhhh.
Totally hopeless.
Just one more reason the Associated Quislings have their proverbial plug pulled asap, my friend.

To the direct question on whether or not the AP's antiwat bias has -- & *is* -- contributing to the U.S. casualty rate?
A resounding YES.

Y'know, bert?
The Islamofacists *posing* as terrorists, they read the AP's bile just as everyone else so just where does everyone think the maniacs get their strategy?

The AP needs to be "squared-up", but-good.

...once & for finally.

28 posted on 12/08/2005 7:19:56 AM PST by Landru (If a sucker's born every minute, that's a lotta suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Looking at recent AP headlines on keywords "Iraq Improvement". Here's the most common results.

Iraq security needs improvement
(Insurgent) Bombs getting more sophisticated.
9/11 Commission blames Bush administration.

No question that the AP is reporting what fits the 'Vietnam' scenario. Their goal is to facilitate an American defeat for the political gain of the liberal democrats. By following this agenda, they are aiding the terrorists that are killing our soldiers and civilians.

There is a word that describes these actions. The word is treason.


29 posted on 12/08/2005 7:26:40 AM PST by rock_lobsta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
The truth is that AP is no worse than all the others in the MSM

In my personal opinion the AP IS very much the worst. I've found I can almost never read anything they write that isn't clearly slanted to the far left. I generally close the browser window as soon as I see "AP", unless I want to know what the left-wing line on something is.
30 posted on 12/08/2005 8:25:56 PM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: starbase

Of course the AP is the source for many news outlets, but the Washington Post is clearly just as bad as AP and I could name other papers as bad as Wapo.


31 posted on 12/09/2005 4:04:55 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson