Posted on 04/14/2003 4:15:56 AM PDT by Mean Daddy
April 14, 2003 -- ONE byproduct of war is often a major change in media and news reporting. In the Civil War, photography was born. In World War II, Edward R. Murrow brought radio into its own with his dramatic reports of the Nazi blitz on London. In Vietnam, television became pivotal as images of bloodshed soured American backing for the war. The Gulf War saw the growth of CNN as all-news television became essential. In the Iraq War, the public may well have learned not to trust the broadcast networks or the establishment newspapers.
Never before have Americans had the chance to watch the establishment media while also seeing events unfold for themselves, live, on television. Our collective understanding of the dissonance between the two is breeding a distrust of the major news organs that will likely long outlast this war.
Those in professional politics take the media's distortions for granted, and even learn to play them through what has come to be called "spin." We know what's happening in Washington, the White House and Congress; each morning, when we read the version the media give to the public, we can't but help notice the difference.
But the average American rarely, if ever, gets that opportunity. In this war, they did - and their reaction to media news is likely never to be quite the same.
Each morning, we sat reading our copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times and ruminated on their prophecies of doom and quagmire. Then we looked up to see, on television, correspondents actually embedded with our troops reporting quick advances, one-sided firefights, melting opposition and, finally, welcoming crowds.
Then the TV would cut back to the anchors and military analysts far from the battlefield. There, with their pointers and maps, we heard all about how we had too few troops in Iraq and the war plan had misfired and that Bush's failure to enlist Turkish cooperation was likely to prove disastrous.
For months before the war started, we had read articles in the establishment media about how house-to-house fighting in Baghdad would consume our troops like a meat grinder. We heard dire TV predictions of poison gas, missile attacks on Israel and burning oil wells. None of it happened.
Then, as the war unfolded, it was obvious that minor mishaps would dominate the network and newspaper coverage. Friendly-fire casualties, accidental journalist deaths, temporary supply shortages, unavoidable killing of civilians - all were played with the same or greater gusto than was the news of the actual war itself.
Who can forget juxtapositions like this one: A joyous mob hauls down Saddam Hussein's 40-foot statue in a scene reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall - while ABC's Peter Jennings belittles the Iraqis as a "small crowd"?
The disjuncture between the reality and the reporting became obvious to anyone who had eyes and ears.
A few news organs, including this newspaper, featured reports that the established media felt were cheerleading in their optimism. But reality proved the "cheerleaders" right and the pessimists wrong.
The result has been a major shift in American media/news habits. While CBS viewership dropped 15 percent from pre-war totals, ABC fell 6 percent and NBC gained an anemic 3 percent, the Fox News Channel audience rose 236 percent while CNN and MSNBC (with smaller audiences) recorded similarly impressive gains.
On morning TV, the cable show Fox and Friends actually drew 2.9 million viewers, more than CBS' 2.8 million on its Early Show - the first time a cable news station has beaten a network news program in ratings (but not the last).
Among younger viewers (18-34), CBS Evening News fell 16 percent while Fox News Channel gained fivefold.
But the biggest loser was The New York Times, formerly the newspaper of record, but now reduced - in full public view - to a newspaper of the political opposition. Its readers got to see, in plain view, the paper's pessimism and bias against the Bush administration.
This has been a rough war for tyrants and those who try to control the thoughts of their people. In Baghdad - but also in Manhattan, at the headquarters of the Times, NBC, CBS and ABC.
The war coverage may be the turning point for a majority of Americans, but It started much earlier. This is the dawning of a golden age for America, where Truth and Skepticism will take their rightful predominant place with care for "the chilrun".
FREED IRAQI'S CHEERING CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM WHO ARRIVED
Click picture for more Information
THIS JUST IN: "Americans who only watch CBS/CNN/NBC/ABC
are at risk for developing depression, shingles, and other DSM symptoms and signs.
The therapy may be as follows, Rx : FREE REPUBLIC 1-2x q2-6h or prn"
I hadn't checked the author until I saw how you bumped the thread!
The "elite" have noticed that the media does not accurately portray reality, and the "elite" have no incentive to announce or address it. In fact, the media is an organ, a part of the elite, and accuracy is NOT part of the agenda. At best, the goal is market share and revenue. At worst, the goal is manipulation of public opinion and perception in order to effect a deeper level of control.
If these reporters had not been "embedded" they would have been on the sidelines, giving cynical reports about what was happening from Kuwait and Qatar.
The only reporters covering the stories in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities would have been Peter Arnett and the anti-American foreign reporters and we wouldn't have seen the same pictures that we've been seeing. They would have avoided the jubilant crowds and the positive images.
Says it all. The left tried to compare Bush to Hitler and Sadamn, but the biggest comparison is that the "Leftist, Elite Media Guard" is a whole team of Bagdad-Bobs.
I always knew you were one sharp cookie! ;-)
This paragraph is a keeper, but he forgot to mention Atlanta (CNN).
WooHOO! Fox Rocks!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Old Grey Lady's about to keel over and croak.
Not a moment too soon ;)
Torie Clark... The Pentagon spokeswoman with the loud jackets.
That about says it all
That's just what I was thinking about the PNN (Poltroon "news" network) revelation by Mr. Jordan. CNN is a half-truth reporting operation, and only the lazy and ignorant assume that truth is spoon-fed to you, free.It is well to keep in mind the Red-Blue map of America, which shows the concentration of Democratic voters exactly where you would expect to see the least educated or the overeducated. The Democratic Party is the party not only of the poor but of the overpriveledged.
The Republican Party's mission is to protect the middle class against political assault from both. Jack Kemp, in his vp debate with Al Gore in 1996, signally failed in that mission.
The embedded reporters are an absolute stroke on genuis from the administration. First, it made us feel much more a part of the war. That is why the approval ratings have gone through the roof. To see a war happening first hand, is something that touchs you in ways that cannot be explained. The images from this one will be lasting. Secondly, it will create a bond between the media and the military for a generation to come. They got to know the troops, saw what they can do, and in many cases were saved from death from these same troops. A lot of these embedded reporters will become anchors over the next 5 years, and their influence will grow to other parts of the business.
And I cannot emphasize enough how the internet has changed our lives forever. Even though I had the TV on to get real time video, I got most of my news from the internet. The best example was the night of the Lynch POW rescue. As you remember, it took over an hour for Centcom to come out and make their announcement. My wife and I were eating dinner and watching TV. Wondering what the good news was going to be. After a while, I told my wife, I could find out what it was going to be. Walked over to the computer and in 5 seconds, I told her we had rescured a POW named Jessica Lynch. Just amazing what news you can get so quickly here...
Toe Sucker Bump!
He makes an interesting list --
Civil War == Photography,
WWII == Radio,
Vietnam == Television,
GWI == CNN 24/7 News.
The next member of the series is, of course,
GWII == Internet.
The reason the major media news outlets "lost credibility" is also obvious, people could cross check their information on the internet with the major media.
I don't know about you folks, but I picked up my news from EVERYWHERE (Debka, the Russian "Intelligence" translations, FreeRepublic of course, as well as the Chilean TV & newspapers, Orlin Grabbe (!), BBC, Foxnews, and *even* CNN!
I purposely chose a wide a variey of news sources, from highly biased on each side, to rumor, to foreign -- then I made up my own mind based on as much information as I could get...
"My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest,
cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest.
That is all the strength that I have."
Theodore Roosevelt
The tide was already turning before the war.
Yep. I briefly wrote about it in an article posted on FR back in early August 1998.
An Inside Look At Clinton's
Ulterior Motive and The Real Reason
Why He Won't Resign Has Congress
Terrified of Holding Televised
Impeachment Hearings
Had the Senate not so grossly neglected its responsibility it would have been reality TV on par with the recent embedded reporters and FOX News reality TV coverage of the war.
Reality versus illusions.
Liberal media is in fact and effect far more trapped by group-think mentality than the general public. They have set themselves up for eventual and certain collapse. All cult-like groups do it to themselves due to creating illusions of power and prestige wherein they soon after come to believe the illusions they created are real.
This type of authority group-think mentality is prevalent in congress, the judicial branch and executive/alphabet agencies. They too have set themselves up to believe the illusions they've created are real.
Republicans good, Democrats bad. Or is it the other way around.
Politicians and bureaucrats are not known for their honesty, integrity or character. They routinely compromise those positive traits as means to ends. But the ends can never justify the means.
Over the last 140 years the government has been made up of fifty percent Republicans and fifty percent Democrats. Democrats have won voters by proclaiming their policies would solve all sorts of problems if only they were fully implemented. Further proclaiming that it's the Republicans that keep holding them back and cause them to compromise full implementation. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans proclaim an ongoing battle to stop Democrats from implementing what amounts to socialist policies.
Republicans good, Democrats bad. It's good cop, bad cop.
The effects of government are half created by Republicans and half created by Democrats. It's like how Mr. Brown used to jokingly ask the neighborhood kids: "which do you want, a fat lip or a busted eye brow?"
Way back then I didn't understand how politics works to control the people. But politicians and bureaucrats can only control the people so long as people believe and act as thought politics is the solution.
Politics is the problem, not the solution.
Don't know what to do? Who to support? Who most benefits you, your family and society?
Introduction
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?
Before you'll even entertain the thought of voting for a politician demand that they address Issue 101. Demand that of media outlets too.
Issue 101
How is it that people and society in general have prospered and increased their well being for decades yet the politicians and bureaucrats say we must have another 3,000 laws and regulations each year on top of the 100,000+ laws already on the books... That without them people and society face "disaster". People and society have done quite well without next year's 3,000 new federal laws and regulations. Why all of a sudden can people and society not continue to do quite well without them? The fact is, they'd be better off without 99% of them.
So who really benefits from 3,000 new laws and regulations each year? -- not to mention state laws and regulations. Politicians and bureaucrats. They create boogieman problems and with a complicit media towing their boogieman problems cast a net of false fear and unwarranted despair in people.
Quite literally, they create problems where none exist. They're sick in that they chose to frighten people and foist false despair on them and do that to collect their unearned paychecks. Their job security is predicated on deceiving as many people as possible.
It cost more than just two trillion dollars a year to fund government abuse. That abuse hinders people's development, especially children being indoctrinated rather than educated, harms the economy and causes boom and bust cycles in markets.
Flushing that money down the toilet -- save for military defense spending -- would be better for individuals, their families and society. That's a different way of saying, can't we just pay congress to stay home and not leave their houses. Surely we'd be better off. Politicians and bureaucrats are sick and need your help.
Fully integrated honesty is key. That we have the government we have, that has gone so far off course from the government the founders created, is a product of irrationality and dishonesty. Changing the laws via the system is almost completely useless. Politicians create dozens of unconstitutional laws before even considering repealing just one unconstitutional law. That is not a system -- it's a quagmire of deception, irrationality, fraud and abuse.
Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.
Who are the parasites?
Who are the producers?
Ostracizing the parasitical value destroyers
Praise the value producers
Step one for helping politicians and bureaucrats:
Get your head out of their sandbox.
Step two: Demand that they address Issue 101.
Step three: Ostracize government officials that fail to honestly address Issue 101.
Step four: Champion the science and business communities -- often under relentless attack by the government -- that create jobs, necessities, luxuries and ever greater advancements that support human life, family and society.
I purposely chose a wide a variey of news sources, from highly biased on each side, to rumor, to foreign -- then I made up my own mind based on as much information as I could get...
Thus giving yourself an advantage over people that chose their media sources according to their bias. I've been doing that since 1990. Now I can easily identify irrelevant drivel. On important issues I pay more attention to the drivel as I can get a big picture of how people are being duped and manipulated. See post 40.
"Morris didn't think Bush would win the Senate in the 2002 Election, so wishful thinking of his old affiliations still affect his thinking; but he does often have a sharp eye for trends."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For me...Morris...swerves into the truth often enough to be listenable. ( Is that a word..? ha!! )
FRegards,
Funny too..!!! LOL......!!
FRegards,
This is BIG news. And GREAT news!
JMHO, of course.
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.