Note to Scott (McClellan): An Idea for the Daily Briefing

greg c.

[FreedomFighter1013]

From a citizen:

Dear Scott:

We all know the problem: the leftward tilt of the Liberal Media Monolith .

Anyway, the BIG problem is that the media can subtly reinforce an untruth, -- an urban legend -- to a point where it becomes the Conventional Wisdom. And we must face it, an incorrect opinion left uncontested is a fact .

There are hundreds of examples the MSM/LMM deny. The canards that the Iraq war was "all about oil" and that Bush was "in bed" with the Saudis. Is that why oil closed yesterday above $58 a barrel?

But here's is where the idea sprang from. Earlier this week, Jane Araf filed a report for CNN called "View from Afar." On the whole the report was pretty innocuous, just another take on the hard, dirty, hot and dangerous work our troops are doing to secure that country.

One sentence leaped to my attention. Towards the end of the story, she intoned: "...there are parts of this country where schools are open and people have jobs." What?

I understand that the truth is about 90+% of the country (Iraq) is doing just fine . Some __ million people are living in relative peace, a new, representative government has been formed, Iraq's military is taking on more and more hazardous duty, and so on.

She went on to report, that this specific town was a dysfunctional hell-hole, where the people are clamoring for the troops to come in and destroy the terrorists.

Here's the problem, it’s a pretty good story on its face, especially by what we're used to. At least we (Americans, the military) didn't come out looking like baby killing, drug addled, white trash, like we did in Vietnam. The troops come out looking smart and hard-working, the Iraqis look pro-American.

But what about that one line?

For me, a devotee of the Administration and its Iraq policy, the Iraq effort has been a success, a difficult step on the ongoing battle on the War on Terror . But not for everyone, especially enemies of the Administration and the war. I’m picturing Katrina vanden Heuvel right now. These are the people who refer to the War on Terror in quotation marks, as if to say, the “so-called war on terror.”

For them, that sentence just reinforces their assertions. For me, that sentence hangs in the ethers like an elephant wearing sipping cocktails in Soho, it's such a distortion.

I understand it's impossible to fight every single battle, to take on every controversial idea, but I think there is a way.

Here's the idea: If once a week you shined the harsh light of reality on one obviously boneheaded, unabashedly biased statement like that, you could shift the discussion to the quality of LMM reporting. It's not taking on the whole report, just a single item. You can even make them (the reporter, the MSM) feel good by raving about the rest of her work and the grit she has shown as an embed, make her and her bosses feel good.

You could call it "Minor Distortions ," or " Fact or Opinion?" something like that. Introduce it at the end of the briefing, open it up using some of the language I've used above, show the snipet of tape, then comment on the distortion.

Reinforce the point that it's an opinion not a fact. Agree to how minor it is, but emphasize how someone has got to counter these minor comments before they become enshrined as facts.

Over as year's time, a weekly piece like this could make a giant difference for the Administration.

I hope this idea helps,

Best,

Greg C.

[daybreakcoming]

Poor Scott. He's almost too nice to have one of the toughest jobs in the world. A hostile media and people like myself who wish for Ari back. And yet Ari couldn't tough it out. Perhaps you should send this to McClellan. I doubt he gets much constructive mail.

[G Larry]

How about simple statements like:

"First, the behavior described IS NOT TORTURE!"
"Second, The prisoners in Gitmo are "UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS" and therefore "ARE NOT COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION"!
"Third, I missed the paragraph REQUIRING "AIR CONDITIONING".

[cubreporter]

Yes, he is too nice. God bless him but...you don't go into a shark's tank with a butter knife. We need someone with a strong presence like Ari was. Scott just looks like a helpless little scared puppy behind that mike. He may be qualified to DO the job however, his presence is just not strong. As much as I like him as a person and think he must be jsut a really nice guy, I think we need someone like Ari who used to be able to put those media pukes in their place.

[wizardoz]

Actually, unlawful combatants are covered by the Geneva convention. They're just covered by a different section. They have rights, like the POWs, just not as many. And in Gitmo they are accorded those rights that the Geneva convention outlines for unlawful combatants.

On a side note, I have found that when coffee shop liberals make that remark "it's all for oil," it's pretty effective to try and make them explain just exactly what they mean by that.

Because most of them have said it so many times only to people who agree that they don't actually know exactly what they mean. So I ask.

What do you mean, "for" oil? Do you think we are trying to get Iraqi oil that we couldn't get before, when Saddam was in power? Why do you think that? Don't you know Saddam wanted to sell his oil and we were the ones insisting on the sanctions? Do you think we are stealing it and not paying the Iraqi people? Have you heard anything like that anywhere? (No.)

Do you think it was to drive the price of oil UP or DOWN? (They never know for sure.)

Sometimes they get as specific as "it's all a plot to get Halliburton a contract because Cheney owns shares." Then it's kind of fun to ask, "What exactly do you think Cheney wants with more money? You think he wants another yacht? What is it you think he wants that he can't afford now?" When they declare that he's after power, I usually point out that he's already VP, what more power will a Halliburton contract give him?

At this point they usually start sputtering in outrage and declare that they aren't going to waste anymore time talking with someone like you. Then they stomp away, mortified to realize that they aren't really sure anymore just exactly what they think.

Although, some of them have a very developed paranoia that the whole thing was to replace Saddam because he was going to switch Iraqi currency to the Euro, and that would "hurt" the American dollar. (Like the Illuminati wouldn't just invest in the Euro instead. Ha.)

[G Larry]

Got your point on the "side note" but regarding:
"Actually, unlawful combatants are covered by the Geneva convention",

I'll have to resort to "show me".

IF there happens to be a reference, 'Are we violating those provisions'?

[wizardoz]

Here's a quick link. It's only Wickipedia but they provide yet further links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Here is what it says, you'll have to go there if you want to follow the links, though, because I'm not very good at html codes:

The "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in GCIII; nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." If there is doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a competent tribunal.

In answer to your other question, no, I don't think we are in violation of their rights under the fourth Geneva convention at all. In fact, I suspect we treat them better than they deserve.

[G Larry]

"Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights......

"may choose" and "may retain" sound pretty arbitrary to me.
How is it possible to violate such vague language?

Thank you for the research and the details.

[wizardoz]

I just don't know how people keep getting away with saying that the terrorists are being classified as unlawful combatants to get around the Geneva convention. It doesn't get around the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention still applies and we are in compliance.

Oh well.