Posted on 03/22/2006 5:24:01 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
March 22, 2006
Laura Ingraham clearly hit an MSM sore spot with the charges she levelled during her appearance on yesterday's Today show, in which she locked horns with David Gregory and James Carville. Read Laura in the Lions Den.
Ingraham accused most American media of covering Iraq from their balconies in the Green Zone, confining their reports largely to IEDs and killings and missing the more positive stories that abound across the country.
This morning, a clearly stung NBC asked itself whether it is doing a good job reporting on Iraq, and - surprise! - the Peacock Network assured itself and us that indeed it is. If anything, Today told us, the situation in Iraq is even worse than the MSM portray it.
Ingraham's gutsy appearance took on national momentum. Laura discussed it at length during her own syndicated radio show. Rush Limbaugh picked it up, and Ingraham made evening appearances on the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes. At one point, Ingraham mentioned that it was her viewing yesterday of a report by NBC's Richard Engel, from the proverbial Green Zone balcony, that sparked some of her sentiment.
NBC fired back this morning, and featured the very same Engel in doing so.
Hosting the segment was Gregory, sitting in for Matt Lauer. He kicked things off asking "is the U.S. media focusing too much on the negative and ignoring the positive stories in Iraq?" Gregory then threw it to Engel in Baghdad, who began by alleging that there are "a lot of myths and misperceptions about what reporters are doing and are not doing here in Iraq."
Engel then narrated a montage showing that at various times, he and his crew have accompanied US troops, put on flack jackets and ventured outside the Green Zone, and exposed themselves to a variety of violent situations. We saw dramatic footage of Engel flat on the ground as bullets whizzed around. The point was made that even staying in the office can be dangerous, as the NBC News Bureau has twice been bombed. Engel also mentioned the danger of kidnapping, with 40 reporters having been taken hostage so far.
While making the case that Baghdad is a dangerous place and that the people covering display bravery, in many ways Engel failed to confront Ingraham's most fundamental charges. She had challenged NBC to apply some of the massive resources it devoted to the Olympics, or even to answering "Where in the World is Matt Lauer?", to its Iraq coverage. Ingraham suggested that the media get off their perches and out into the field. Speak with the Iraqi military, meet with villagers and children. Ingraham predicted that the resulting stories would paint a picture of Iraq more positive than the gloom and doom seen in the glare of the latest IED explosion that is the typical MSM fare.
There was nothing in Engel's report to indicate that NBC had ventured much if at all outside Baghdad or made any systematic effort to speak with the Iraqi military, or with Iraqi people-in-the street or with villagers in the many peaceful areas of the country.
Indeed, Engel's report confirmed Ingraham's allegation that the MSM portray Iraq in a consistently negative light. At one point, Engel asserted that "reporting on everyday life is increasingly dangerous because life here is getting more dangerous." And incredibly, Engel closed by claiming that, if anything, NBC's coverage was . . . not negative enough.
When Gregory asked "is security the overall story?" Engel replied:
"Most Iraqis I speak to say most reporters get it wrong. The situation on the ground is worse than the images we project on television."
I knew back then we would have troop levels there .. this is part of the WOT
What I didn't except was that some of our media and members of congress would be fighting us too like they are
But that news report is for people that live in Pittsburg. You can look around you and see with your own eyes that that isn't the whole story. I don't think you can compare local news coverage to coverage of a war in a foreign land where we are reliant on the media to show the whole story because we can't see anything but what they show us.
It's time for someone to slap monkeyface Gregory.
Oh, now Kenny boy is zagging back away from the bats.
Message to MSM reporters:The Iraqis you choose to speak to could be the problem. A small group of Sunnis were Sadaam's preferred people. They lived quite well before we arrived. They do not have as much now. Most of the population had very little and now live much better. If you interview in the places where the former elites lived, you will naturally get complaints. Get out and about.
I'm sorry, I cannot accept that from you. While we may disagree on certain issues, I will at the end of the day know the difference was an honest difference. that statement is simply dishonest.
If I knew how and had the time, I could go back and check your posts on this site and find that from day one that you would have believed that some of our media and certain memebers of Congress would be against our invasion and ongoing effort in Iraq. It's a given. There is no way that you can find surprise that the certain media folks and Congressional folks would be against this action. Yes, in general, the chin music was much less at the beginning. But that was as we were performing at Desert Storm levels or better as we marched in and surgically took over the Country.
Believe me, if this war had been executed exactly as it has been executed to this day, but the President was Gore (I shudder), you and scores others would be pointing out the shortcomings of exactly the same actions you are now defending. Please don't give me the reply Gore wouldn't have done it this way. That's not the point. The point is if he did. You would not be happy with the progress to date.
And while they hate the radical hedonism that Hollywood promotes, those who hate that aspect of our culture also hate those of us who believe and live our lives for Christ. There's no difference in their eyes.
I too cannot understand the terrorist mindset. I don't believe you can understand insanity.
Here we are in 2006, and Laura Ingraham is making the same charges about how NBC reporters go about doing their reporting as Arnot cited way back then.
As for the Gore comparision, I'm saying if everything had been done exactly as it had been done to date, exactly, I don't think many rank and file, grass roots or other types of conservatives would be defending our current situation. I'm asking for intellectual honesty. I don't think you would be happy with our current situation in Iraq if this was a dem president, but the events had been played out in the same manner.
I understand your point there .. but at the same time .. SOME in the media deserve those attacks because of their history .. that you cannot deny
As for Gore .. if he fought this war exactly like President Bush has .. no, I wouldn't slam him .. because he would be doing the right thing in fighting this WOT
But since Clinton and Gore didn't do that when they had their chance (8 years) .. I highly doubt that Gore would fight this war like Bush has
Bingo!
Tim Russert in a dishonest man who unfortunately has the reverse reputation. He is a sublte spinner clearly wihtin the Democratic party camp. Every doubt is blown the left's way; the way he assembles issues and questions are sublte yet clear acceptances of the left's premises. Within that orbit, one can appear objective by asking questions straightforwardly and seemingly evenhandedly; but the game has been stacked from the beginning by the selection of the framework.
Because it's connected to the bar several floors below.
Had John Kerry won the Presidency in 2004, that is EXACTLY the stories they would be reporting.
That is a lie. All he was doing was acknowledging reality. Even if the Iraqi government asked us TOMORROW to leave, we couldn't just snap our fingers and they all would disappear from Iraq and reappear at Ft Hood. He prefaced that remark by saying that if the question was about a complete withdrawal down to the last man, then only the next President would be able to answer that as it would take at least 2 1/2 years to completely remove all of our troops.
How many of those journalist and their assistants were killed because they were caught in a firefight while "embedded" with the insurgents?
So you don't think Iran would move in and attempt to take control of Iraq in our absence? Or Syria? Or Al Qaeda? Even if we left with Iraq a democracy, the "cold war" with international terrorism and their state sponsors would still be ongoing.
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.