The media's Iraq con job: journalists using 'flat-out deceit' in reporting

I'm convinced that when the United States went to war in April of 2003, the media drew arms as well, and although professional neutrality is key to reporting the news, I'm not always sure how many members of the press have chosen sides.

When I first got to Iraq six months ago, I had my fingers crossed. I literally had no idea what I would find. My biggest fear was that I'd see a group of very discouraged men and women trying to implement a failing policy. I thought I'd see Iraqis poorly coping with an oppressive American military.

What made me more anxious is that I swore I'd tell the full story, the good, bad and ugly. That's what the press is supposed to do. They're supposed to tell the stories of the events that happen. The job of the press is to explain what's going on in places where most readers will never be able to go.

The fact that I am a student of history gave me an additional responsibility. Primary sources, or eyewitness to events, are highly valued resources for historians to interpret history.

I know it’s not funny. It’s maddening even but still, in just a tiny glimmer of irony, I can see a touch of humor in a whole war goes by and these fools that calls themselves journalists slept through the whole thing. Instead of doing their jobs, they only reported their bias and that will be one of the footnotes of this war. How crappy these freaks did their jobs. They were and are at best, rank amateurs.

Stories like this make me feel like FR should should send 30,000 copies of this story to the MSM, as an in your face action.

FR mainly exists because there is no longer a competent media, kinda sad though we do so little to combat the MSM. Would sometimes think we should be bombarding at least one faction of the MSM with letters protesting there obscene incompetence.

The media could be hammering us every evening with that day’s death, but they are not. They could try to convince by constant repetition that “even one death is awful,” but they are not.

They would have to argue that “even though the average number of deaths in down, any death is proof that Iraq is still in turmoil.” That would continue to assist their assassins and insurgents in Iraq. But, they are not doing it. Why.

My guess is that they know that their assassins and insurgents in Iraq have been killed. They no longer have a force there to assist them in increasing the turmoil.

My other guess is that with the Iraqis increasingly taking over responsibility in area after area, and with the media’s reporters having been almost exclusively mid-east in origin (islamics), they know that the Islamic Army is not going to give them a pass. Instead they’ll shoot the reporter/photographer first if they even look like they’re somehow involved with the enemy or giving some kind of media aid/comfort.

In short, the media is suffering from a lack of human resources on the ground. Their propaganda-supported insurgent army is decimated, and their propagandist technician reporter/photographers are dead or frightened.

I would take that to mean that the media now knows more that just that they aren’t winning. They know now that they CAN’T win.

If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. I expect the media to try to become players in the new Iraqi government in order to gain a foothold for future shenanigans.

Remember the Saddam Hussein/CNN deal.

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.