Today’s Los Angeles Times (pdf):
“The aim of a nation in war is to subdue the enemy’s will to resist, with the least possible human and economic loss itself . . . our goal in war can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will . . . all such acts as defeat in the field, propaganda, blockade, diplomacy, or attack on the centres of government and population are seen to be but means to that end; we are free to weigh the respective merits of each, and to choose whichever is most suitable and most economic, i.e. that which will gain the goal with the minimum disruption of our national life during and after the war…. The destruction of the enemy’s armed forces is but a means–and not necessarily an inevitable or infallible one–to the attainment of the real objective.“
[emphasis mine – A.L.]
I’ll have a longer post on this tonight.
“The thing speaks for itself?”
Do you mean the face of an injured American soldier? The living example of what happens when we send men to war?
Are you suggesting that our “free press” should hide things like this — this soldier’s face — and pretend they don’t exist? Because, when “The aim of a nation in war is to subdue the enemy’s will to resist, with the least possible human and economic loss itself…” you’re putting the Los Angeles Times in the position of an “enemy nation,” no?
Stickler, in a world where a stature of a 9/11 victim falling can’t be shown in public, murders of artists by religious fanatics gets virtually no mention, and they refuse to print pictures of Nick berg’s body with his head on his chest, yeah, I’ll make the call that this selective use of freedom means something.
As noted, more tonight.
A.L.
AL, please post that picture below “read the rest” so that it is not the first thing that some of the more sensitive viewers (including first-timers) see when they come to WOC.
Thanks,
Well, all those nasty examples you mention are different from this one in that the victims died. And there were plenty of pictures of people falling from the twin towers, sometimes on the front pages.
Moreover, this soldier is not only still alive, he’s injured because of policy for which all citizens of our Republic share responsibility. He was injured on a job which we all hired him to do, whether we agree with that job or not.
You seem to be intimating that our citizenry is too cowardly to look at the truth. And, worse, that the American media should be complicit in sugarcoating the truth.
It’s curious how the presence of blood – dried or fresh – makes wounds look much worse.
On the topic: I think that in wartime responsible media should be careful about what they publish.
When I see that picture, it reaffirms the commitment to stay in Iraq, to ensure some stabilty and to wipe out the sh*tbag insurgents who injured that soldier. But maybe I’m not interpreting it the right way?
Do you mean the face of an injured American soldier? The living example of what happens when we send men to war?
We should be seeing more photos of what happens when we don’t send men to war – like in Darfur. Photos of the victims of that Islamist-led genocide should be on our front page as often as photos of Iraq. That might inspire someone to do something to stop the genocide.
The fact that the media ignores the slaughter in Darfur is a sign that their goals go beyond ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. The Islamist-led slaughter in Darfur is exponentially worse than the violence in Iraq.
‘Do you mean the face of a mutilated American infant? The living example of what happens when we send legalize abortion?’
You know, stickler, a few perfectly formed tiny hands and feet to go along with the caption “undifferentiated tissue”.
“You seem to be intimating that our citizenry is too cowardly to look at the truth. And, worse, that the American media should be complicit in sugarcoating the truth.”
Indeed. With dozens of topics that liberal newspapers routinely refuse to illustrate, suddenly stickler becomes an absolutist. I lost respect for neo-liberals like stickler a long time ago. (Hanoi Kerry as war hero was the start.)
Grow a principle, hypocrite.
Can anybody seriously say that color picture on the front page of the LAT was not put there to promote a specific agenda?
The days of considering the major news organizations in the USA as impartial reporters of events is long past. It’s not even worth the argument.
I’m trying to think of the last time I saw a front page with a badly burned fireman. Or a dead police officer.
Nope. Ain’t happening.
The selective use of graphic images is pathetic. The LA Times can kill more soliders with one front page picture than the enemy can with a truckload of IEDs.
I’m with Mary. That photo makes me want to take the nutjob’s holy book and place it firmly up their athole. The clear insanity of the fanatics of islamistomania wherever it is found, has to give way to the greater sanity of the enlightenment. Whatever it takes, mon amis.
Mr. Sticker,
S: “Well, all those nasty examples you mention are different from this one in that the victims died.”
I don’t understand.
Normally death is considered worse than injury, so by the logic of your argument, I would expect the news media to be MORE forthcoming with those images, not less. That is, unless reporting the truth is not actually the priority, in which case I must divine some other agenda which motivates the selective publication of graphic images.
But truly… what was your point?
the ironic thing is, the LA Times is actually in worse shape than the poor soul in the picture. he may survive, the times won’t (and shouldn’t).
Thorley (#3): Afraid not. Winds is a site by and for adults. If the LA Times ran it, and it’s relevant, Marc should show it. The post makes no sense without it on display, and a great deal of sense with it.
Marc probably meant the quote in the sense of “how do democracies find the will to fight”…. I read it in the sense that the media knows exactly who it has chosen as its enemy, and is waging war with the objective above. The LA Times particularly fits this profile.
When has the LAT ran on its front page a picture of the aftermath of a suicide bombing, be it in Iraq or Israel? After all, if its just demonstrating what a particular policy’s results are, they shouldn’t have a problem with that, right?
I find objections to this picture offensive.
We have civilian control of the military. These guys go and fight, and kill, and are injured, and die, where we send them. They follow our orders. The very least we owe them is a clear understanding of what we are asking them to endure. Don’t like greusome pictures? Boo hoo.
Time to grow up a little as a people. When we get involved in a war, we’re making orphans, American and foreign. We’re making widows. We’re tearing the hearts out of parents. We’re sentencing men and women and children to lifetimes of pain and loneliness. It’s a pretty horrible business. We should know that. We should keep that clearly in mind.
I supported this, and other wars, knowing that my “vote” would bring horror to many lives. I judged that it would, nevertheless, be better than the alternative. But I don’t need to avert my eyes from the reality, or have my tender sensibilities protected. I don’t need to be propagandized or manipulated.
I’m not getting shot at, other men are doing that in my stead and at my behest. We ask them to go, and they snap a salute and go. The very least we owe them — really the very least — is to try and understand a little of what we’ve sent them to do.
Cut And Run!
They are hurting our soldiers!
I am being facetious.
The LA Times dishonors this young man’s service by showing him in this terrible moment of vulnerablity, pain and loss. By using him as propadanda,they also are violating his privacy.
Is what a wounded soldier looks like news?
Such an image of a wounded enemy prisoner could be deemed a violation of the Geneva Convention and probably would be avoided by the LAT. To uber display a badly wounded private soldier serving his our own country, on the other hand, is fair game. What hypocrisy. What silly school did these people go to?
The most important truth here is the agenda of the LA Times obfuscates the evil of the enemy while dishonoring and disrepecting the private soldiers who face that enemy in our stead.
I find that the objections to this picture have a variety of reasons, and I try to consider these various reasons on their merit. Let me break it down for you.
I, too, fail to see why closeups of:
– aborted fetuses
– fried firemen
– cops with multiple gunshot wounds including head shots
– someone beaten to death during a riot,
– someone pushed to a fatal fall during a fire
…are any less noewsworthy.
Aren’t all of these things gripping?
Aren’t many of them attributable to policy of one sort or another?
Aren’t they therefore newsworthy?
Has that paper ever shown, say, an eviscerated or beheaded hostage at the same resolution, with the same quality lighting?
{sound of crickets chirping}
Historically, e.g. in the 1930s, front-page photos of this sort appeared mostly in newspapers called (by the most charitable) “tabloids”, and (by those les charitable) “the yellow press”.
This tabloid-like photo, newsworthy or not, when contrasted with the aggregate of front-page photos from this selfsame publication, appears to be evidence of selective attention. In case it isn’t clear, many of the commenters are objecting to that selfsame selective attention, not to the picture per se.
Objecting to sensationalism is distinguishable from objecting to a photo qua photo. That this distinction is not clear to you is also suggestive of selective attention.
Mr. Reynolds,
I agree wholeheartedly with all you have written, except this:
R: “I find objections to this picture offensive.”
That seems like a red herring to me, because I haven’t seen any objections to the photo – just a lot of commentary from those of us who seem to think it demonstrates an agenda.
Do you think it doesn’t? Do you think the LA Times dedicates the same front page coverage to both the gruesome consequences of our foreign policy as it does to the gruesome acts that our foreign policy seeks to combat?
I wonder if moral and recruitment would have stayed in WW2 with Tokyo Rose and Gerbils propaganda machine not only being allowed to function unfettered in the US but given legitimate recognition unchallenged by our leadership. I wonder how that war would have gone if the “US media” would have been “world citizens” and done to that war what it is doing to this one. I wonder if the population would have allowed such.
The media has an agenda and their entire reputation is riding on our failure in the WOT. It is shameful that “US news” and the majority of the Dem party has so invested themselves into defeat of their very birth nation.
Sedition is a crime and should be enforced. The LA time’s license should have been revoked years ago along with the NYT (who also disclosed classified information) and all others who blatantly undermine an active war effort.
Stinker stickler whatever, Good propaganda is based on facts and its all about how those facts mixed with myths and/or assumptions are presented to reach or prove a pre set agenda myth or assumption.
Why is it that in 04’ the “insurgents” were taking entire police stations and army bases daily but the best they can do now is muster bombings on markets or kidnappings. I have never once seen a market bombing reported as what it is desperation by an enemy who no longer can take on the Coalition or even those once incompetent IA or police. They have been dropped down to the level of killing women and children in markets for no military purpose but to assist the US media in their on going propaganda war against the WOT. Instead the same old myths and assumptions are pushed IA incompetent even thou they are meeting and defeating the enemy daily, the Iraqi Police are actually standing and winning when attacked and still have problems but have come along way, that we are in a never ending quagmire even thou steady visible progress is being made. That’s propaganda and just because they have citizenship card don’t make them Americans or loyal to this nation, and if damm sure don’t give them a pass for Sedition.
Is the media to stupid to see this or are they ignoring this because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
Another problem I have is why would it be wrong for a US media to allow a little pro US news and selection? What happened to this nation that such things as supporting ones nation in a “american news group” would be frowned on as biased? WTF Whos going to give the US slant Aljizz?
Whenever people start talking about sedition and controlling the press it gets my libertarian hackles up. I support the LA Times. They have a right to act as obscenely as they want.
But I’ve got a right to speak as well, and I think the LA Times is acting as the enemy. As Reynolds said (#15), we owe these people who served much. I supported the war and I am fully aware of what we’re doing and the cost in lives.
I don’t, however, expect to get ambushed on the front of the paper by a political stunt. And that’s what the LA Times is doing. There’s a sort of “unholy alliance” between our media and our enemies — both want pictures like that to be seen by the most Americans as possible. It’s unethical, it’s immoral, it aides and abets our enemies, and it’s disgusting.
I feel deeply and completely awful that I have moral responsibility for sending those kids over there. It’s a horrific thing we are asking, and the toll is high. But we did the right thing, and I’d send a hundred times that many in order to keep my country and family safe. I’m not bothered by the humanity of that picture, I’m bothered by the inhumanity of the LA Times for showing it.
#15
While I agree with your argument, if in fact what you are arguing against was what was being proposed, but I think you are missing the point of most of the contributers above are trying to say. I can’t speak for everyone, but I think most objections are not so much to the picture of a soldier itself, but to the lack of graphic coverage of other equally greuesome scenes (such as Darfur, suicide bombers, etc)
I live in LA and I have to admit I saw the picture and wrote it off immediately as propaganda. It affected me not at all. I think you’ll find that most everyone feels the same. This is a news paper that long ago became agit-prop for the Left.
I don’t know what pictures the LA Times has published in the past. I know that I saw an awful lot of pictures of 9/11, and video as well as pictures of terrorist beheadings, and video and pictures of men wounded at Khobar, on the USS Cole, and so on, that were clearly not dismissable as anti-war propoganda.
Do a poll: see if you can get to 5% of the US population that is somehow confused about the moral standing of Zarqawi or the insurgents. People understand that these are very bad guys. Really. They get it.
The implication seems to be — and is explicitly stated at times — that the American people are turning against this war because of one-sided media coverage. I think some very small percentage of people are. But I don’t think this alleged media bias has explained the loss of support in the polls. I think the cause of that loss of support is the set of facts.
We started this war to disarm a thug we believed possessed WMD. Well, we didn’t find WMD, and Saddam is in prison. We are fighting this war today to buy time so that the Iraqis can reach political accomodation which will allow them to stand up an army.
I would submit that “As they stand up, we stand down,” reads to the public as a very poor reason to send young men and women to die. Throw in “bringing democracy to the middle east,” it still doesn’t exactly tug at the patriot heart strings. We started off averting a mushroom cloud in New York, and are now acting as bodyguards to Shia and Sunni and Kurdish politicians arguing over who gets how much of which oil field.
The American people are not fools. They may not follow every in and out, but they get that we’ve surrendered the initiative in Iraq, and they get that we seem to be creating at least as many terrorists as we kill, and they get that it’s now about politics in a far-off land that is unlikely to morph into New Hampshire no matter what we do.
Supporters of this war (and again, I am one) are flailing in a desperate effort to find someone to blame — liberals, the media, Europeans, whoever. The blame lies at the feet of the people who mismanaged this war. Sorry, but it is not the fault of the LA Times, it is the fault of Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush. The LA Times didn’t screw up this war, the administration did, and scapegoating the media (which as far as I know has very little control over troop deployments) is beside the point and waste of energy.
Here’s the hard fact that makes us squirm: that guy with his face bloodied is in that condition because we sent him, and it appears we may have entrusted his life to incompetent leaders. Does that make it hard for some of you to look at that photo? It does me.
During the Second World War (Note to Michael Reynolds: WWII was when we went to “make orphans” in Hitler’s Europe) LIFE published several pictures of dead or wounded soldiers. Among them was a famous photo of dead GIs at New Guinea, lying on the beach half buried in sand. There was also a photo of a bandaged British soldier with facial injuries, not too different from this one. Heavily criticized for publishing these images, some editor said, “The dead have died in vain if the living refuse to look at them.” (Note to Michael Reynolds: He didn’t say “Boo hoo.”)
The merits of that aside, I’m not crediting the Los Angeles Times with having any such philosophical intention. LIFE also published photos of enemy dead killed in action, and of Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. I doubt if you’ll see LAT lingering over Saddam’s victims, or the civilian victims of “insurgent” terrorism, and I think they’d chew their own rosy pink toes off before they’d show a photo of dead jihadists littering the sand after a failed attack.
So what are we supposed to conclude from seeing something like this on the front page? It’s pretty clear that some on the other side see it as a welcome piece of propaganda, not a lesson in realism. As previously pointed out, they would not welcome a photo essay on partial birth abortion, that being the wrong sort of propaganda. And if a photo of a suicide bomber who was shot dead before he could detonate were shown, they would join the screams of protest about “insensitivity”. Not that they’re going to see anything like that in the LAT.
Armed Liberal says the thing speaks for itself. I suppose it does, knowing the LAT and knowing the disgusting, hypocritical, and selective use that such images are put to. But so long as we don’t go down and wallow in that sty ourselves, I don’t think we should see depictions of reality as inherently objectionable or even as bad taste. Otherwise we buy into the view that the purpose of the media is to present a selectively edited cartoon to dupe the ignorant masses.
One more thing: There’s nothing necessarily wrong with propaganda, within reasonable limits, so long as it highlights reality rather than distorts it, and so long as the person engaging in it knows the difference between right and wrong and – just as importantly – has a rational and honest sense of proportion. When I was a kid a saw a sickening photo (courtesy of LIFE again) of a black lynching victim who had been chained to a tree and murdered with a blow torch. If more kids saw that picture the Ku Klux Klan would be hiding in Costa Rica.
So the dead have not died in vain, so long as humane people understand why they died.
>>I can’t speak for everyone, but I think most objections are not so much to the picture of a soldier itself, but to the lack of graphic coverage of other equally greuesome scenes (such as Darfur, suicide bombers, etc)
*Exactly.*
I, for one, want to see all of this stuff, at the maximum resolution possible. From all sides, and from all aspects. I’ve always been of the opinion that movies with realistic portrayals of violence and its consequences should be rated G, and all the silly GI Joe style violence should be rated R or X. People, especially children, need to understand war and death, and exactly how messy and icky it is. They need to understand viscerally that it’s not a game, not about glory and honor, and not fun.
This works both ways. They need to see the footage of all the innocent victims of suicide bombing as well as the victims of cluster bombing. There are demons out there, and demon-hunters need to be mobilized to deal with them, but they need to go in to this knowing full well that they might end up looking like the guy on the front page.
Several years ago I showed Schinder’s List to a buddy of mine who had been an intel weenie attached to SEALs. He was unimpressed, thought it was kind of juvenile and Hollywoodized. I didn’t understand what he was talking about for several months until I saw the Frontline program on the Holocaust, the one consisting entirely of original footage from the Nazi death camp liberation. Then I *understood* in a manner I hadn’t before. Statistics like “10 million people killed” aren’t useful. People have to _see_ it.
Mr. Reynolds,
Your post was revealing. Apparently what irks you is not the responses to the photo that you are reading here, but – surprise! – the fact that we are in Iraq.
I note that you took full opportunity of the situation to share with us your political philosophy rather than respond to the narrow question as to whether the _LA TIMES_ (not the internet, not the blogosphere, not Fox News) dedicates the same front page coverage to both the gruesome consequences of our foreign policy as it does to the gruesome acts that our foreign policy seeks to combat.
That was, I think the heart of the discussion… but I could be wrong.
Perhaps you are right, and everybody here is just squirming because “that guy with his face bloodied is in that condition because we sent him, and it appears we may have entrusted his life to incompetent leaders.”
I’m not. I think he probably looks that way because he ran over an IED set by some thugs absolutely opposed to their nation joining a modern world of human rights, representative democracy, and religious and political freedom.
But it was a clever conclusion, and it certainly served to give your post a patina of topicality.
WasteLand:
As I said here, quite clearly, and more than once, and as I’ve said at my blog, I supported this war. In fact I personally supported it for the reason that I hoped bringing democracy to Iraq would help to remake the middle east. So, it kind of looks like my “political philosophy” on this war is about the same as yours. Right?
It’s absurd to pretend that we are concerned here only with the “narrow question” of the editorial choices at the LAT, and not with their effects on public opinion and the outcome of the war. Spare me.
But I certainly enjoyed the tone of of scorn you achieved. I don’t think the fact that you misrepresented my position, or attempted to sidestep the real issue should in any way discourage you from practicing that haughty, magisterial style. You know what helps, though? Baseball. George Will adds baseball references and I think it gives his haught some heft.
I’m sorry, Michael, but I’m with your critics on this one. You seem to be making the case that the war sucks, therefore we should be seeing pictures that the war sucks.
Aside from the circular nature of such an argument, the question is whether the goal is realism or politics. A goal of presenting reality would certainly put these pictures in a larger context. This is not being done.
I don’t know any baseball statistics, so I guess I also won’t have the heft that may be required to get your attention.
I do know that motivation matters. I also know that the casualty rate in Iraq is miniscule compared to other wars. There are so few people dying, in fact, that I don’t think it’s a war at all. Call it a police action, ally support, institution-building, whatever, but it ain’t a war.
Now I understand that doesn’t make that man’s face any better. And any loss of life is horrible. But life is all about perspective. The LAT can take graphic images like that and say whatever they want to without any words at all. That’s a bad perspective for their readers. It’s poor journalism, and it is trying to weaken our resolve. In wartime (and there is a very real larger GWOT), the goal of the enemy is to make us stop fighting. The goal of a loyal opposition party should be to make us fight smarter. I think that distinction is lost in the editorial room at the LAT, and I find the consequences personally disgusting.
Baseball references? 🙂 Naw. I’m completely a-sportual. It wouldn’t add value.
This seems like an extraordinary gaff to me:
M: “It’s absurd to pretend that we are concerned here only with the “narrow question” of the editorial choices at the LAT, and not with their effects on public opinion and the outcome of the war. Spare me.”
Uummmm… no, yes, and OK?
I mean… we are exactly concerned with the impact of editorial choices at the LA Times have on public opinion. That’s the point, no?
You lost me.
So far as you sharing my position on the war? Fair enough. I guess I was misled by this passage:
M: “Supporters of this war (and again, I am one) are flailing in a desperate effort to find someone to blame — liberals, the media, Europeans, whoever. The blame lies at the feet of the people who mismanaged this war… Cheney and Bush. The LA Times didn’t screw up this war, the administration did, and scapegoating the media (which as far as I know has very little control over troop deployments) is beside the point and waste of energy.”
It’s a funny way you have of supporting the war. But I can certainly see the relevence of your sloganeering when I consider that a Staff Seargent injured by an IED is clear and obvious evidence of mismanagement of the war effort.
It’s hard to misrepresent your position. It’s hard to even understand it. Please know that its not intentional.
#23 Michael,
I’m pretty much in agreement with a lot of your opinions, but, when you posted
“I know that I saw an awful lot of pictures of 9/11, and video as well as pictures of terrorist beheadings, and video and pictures of men wounded at Khobar, on the USS Cole, and so on, that were clearly not dismissable as anti-war propoganda.” you completely lost me.
The only place you could have seen the foregoing would be on the Web, and then mostly on non-Left websites. You sure as hell never saw them in/on the LAT, NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and all the other three letter outlets categorized as the MSM.
Mike
And what are the odds that that little bit of rhetorical slippage from the LA Times to all media in aggregate was unintentional?
I’m guessing he has better luck in his own blog – home field advantage, and all.
Does that qualify as a baseball reference?
Here in Dane County, Wisconsin, U.S.A., we are going to be voting on this issue, and yes, pro or con, the vote will have an effect because the Bush Administration will know the outcome of our vote along with the factions in Iraq and all of the rest of the world.
And a yes vote on this ballot proposition, a mere resolution, has consequences. You know, if you point out that demands for troop withdrawal show weakness to an enemy that only understands the politics of strength, oh the humanity, one is questioning another person’s patriotism and all of that. We are a democracy, and far be it for me to insist on anything anti-democratic that these matters be not debated and the people’s opinion’s not heard (didn’t Athens have to deal with such matters, and wouldn’t they have wiped Sparta’s backside if the Athenians didn’t spend so much time debating and passing resolutions?).
But even in a democracy, especially in a democracy, opinions and expression of opinions matter and they have consequences. The Palestinians democractically elected Hamas, a party unyielding in their beligerence towards Israel, and election which constitutes a defacto vote for war — in a democracy, a people can declare war as much as they can declare peace — and just as a vote here in Madison “for peace” will have consequences, a vote in Gaza for war also has consequences.
My only gripe is that Gazans or whoever vote for war and then gripe and moan and complain that they are suffering the consequences of war, and that Americans will vote resolutions for peace but will be the first beating the war drums the next time some attack happens on our shores.
This young man, so cruelly wounded, is not the first American to pay a blood price for his country and for certain will not be the last. I happen to believe we would have fewer casualties if we didn’t engage in so much hand wringing because our enemy is weak in direct military engagements and their only hope is to inflict enough casualties that the people back home will give up (I have read much of B. Liddell Hart). But we are a democracy, and such hand wringing is part of the cost of freedom, and that is the principle for which this man put his life on the line.
The New York Times has always lead the pack when it comes to spotlighting grisly images in places like Africa. Don’t try to pretend otherwise. Right-wing media outlets could care less unless the country in question harbors terrorists or has a persecuted Christian minority.
The LA Times picture is absolutely right to remind people of what is at stake, and how important it is to have a competent leader. It doesn’t matter if the picture strengthens your belief in the Iraq war or undercuts your support. What matters is that people see what war involves, and that means putting pictures like this on the front page.
Final thought: If you think putting a picture like this on the front page is treason, find a new country. Because in America we don’t hide behind noble rhetoric of our leaders, and we aren’t afraid to confront the ugly reality of life and war.
Final thought: If you think putting a picture like this on the front page is treason, find a new country.
I think the point of the orgiastic hatred of a free press here at Winds of Change is not to “find” a new country.
It’s to help “create” a new country. One with a lot less subversive media messages which get in the way of the national mission.
Nate –
I haven’t ever said that free speech was treason; on the converse, neither do I see an effort (and there are certainly discussions to have about lines and boundaries) to shape public opinion – which in more optomistic times would be called ‘to lead’ – in our national interest is a bad thing.
There is a real tough nut of a problem in that if you assume that a) defending freedom periodically takes war; b) people don’t like war; c) leaders in free societies have to work to shape public opinion (see “Yankee Doodle Dandy”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008313.php)
How does a free society deal with the problem of maintaining wartime morale?
It was damn difficult to do in World War II, which we perceive as “The Good War”. How do we do it today? And if we can’t, what are the consequences?
Sadly, we live in a world where others don’t seem as troubled by these issues as we are; the question is how we move them to our level of issue before they move us to theirs.
A.L.
Final thought: If you think putting a picture like this on the front page is treason, find a new country. Because in America we don’t hide behind noble rhetoric of our leaders, and we aren’t afraid to confront the ugly reality of life and war.
Well, in the past, we have hid behind the noble rhetoric of our leaders. Some examples from WW2:
* The classification of the sinking of US troop transports during a practice run for the D-Day landings called “Operation Tiger.” The families were informed of the deaths of the casualties (about 800) about six months later, and about five months after D-Day. The details themselves were declassified sometime during Watergate, some 30 years later.
* During the war, the Nazis had discovered the remains of the Katyn Forest massacre, and were using it in propaganda. The Roosevelt Administration made it clear that anyone who repeated this propaganda (which would actually turn out to be the truth) would have their broadcast license revoked.
There are probably a lot more examples from that war that I simply don’t know enough history to relate.
We think of WW2 as the “good war” in spite of half a million military casualties because we had effective propaganda that kept us from thinking of it at the time as going from screwup to screwup. In a way, it hurt us because it gave us a view of war that would make things look worse for anyone who fought a war without suspending the first amendment beforehand.
I haven’t ever said that free speech was treason; on the converse, neither do I see an effort (and there are certainly discussions to have about lines and boundaries) to shape public opinion – which in more optomistic times would be called ‘to lead’ – in our national interest is a bad thing.
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
You posted a very sharp PDF of the front cover of the Los Angeles Times. You titled your post “the thing speaks for itself.” Then you appended a quote from B.H. Liddell Hart, where you bolded these passages:
The aim of a nation in war is to subdue the enemy’s will to resist, with the least possible human and economic loss itself … The destruction of the enemy’s armed forces is but a means–and not necessarily an inevitable or infallible one–to the attainment of the real objective.
I called you on this on the first response here. You studiously avoided responding. Are you — seriously — saying that the Los Angeles Times is the enemy? An enemy nation? If it isn’t the LA Times, then who is the enemy? Whom, exactly, is this newspaper serving? The Iraqi insurgency? Osama bin Laden? Your post quite clearly asserts that the LA Times is serving some nation’s agenda. Which?
“stickler” speaks of orgiastic hatred.
Seems like you’re having a one-person orgy of that sort yourself. Does it feel good? I look at this thread, and WoC overall, and I’m quite confident you have your eyes squinted shut in pursuit of something you find pleasant. Maybe it’s only blind righteousness. In any event: How nice for you.
Oh! It turns out “stickler” can actually post something substantive! Good for you. You get a gold star.
Now to work on the idea that WoC, in toto, wants a fascist America that controls the media. That *is* what you’re saying, isn’t it? Or will you studiously avoid responding to this question?
Or is it possible that there are shades of meaning that escape you? Naaaah. What are the odds of that?
Mr. Nortius (or is it Maximus?):
You seem happy to fling ad hominem garbage. But what of the substance?
Is the Los Angeles Times serving an enemy nation?
Yes or no.
If yes, then which?
Or is this newspaper’s portrayal of a wounded American hero — in all his bloody, living, majesty — simply inconvenient?
I’ve waited for awhile now for the original poster (ArmedZampolit) to expound on his original point. I was afraid he’d gone off half-cocked and not, you know, actually read the newspaper’s article. He hates the picture, I think we can all agree. How about the appended text?
The wounded in Iraq receive better and faster medical treatment than in any previous conflict. Often, soldiers are rushed to the operating room within minutes of being unloaded from Black Hawk medevac helicopters.
…
Despite the destructive force of roadside bombs, the rate of wounded who die is lower in Iraq than for any war in U.S. history. Since the war began three years ago, about 10% of those wounded have died of their injuries, according to the Pentagon, down from 24% during the Vietnam War and 30% during World War II. The highest lethality rate was 42%, during the Revolutionary War.
…
Unable to speak, Griffin wrote down phone numbers for his mother in Texas and his sister in Germany, and gave them to the nurse accompanying him. He wanted his mother to know what had happened to him. He wanted his sister, Megan, an Army private in Germany, to meet his plane.
The nurse phoned Renee Hickman in Humble, Texas. Hickman had already received a call from her son’s rear detachment, telling her that Griffin had been wounded. But she did not know the extent of his injuries, and she felt a curious wave of relief when the nurse described them. They sounded serious, but not hopeless.
“I had assumed the worst,” Hickman said later. “As bad as it sounded, he was alive. Just hearing her voice, knowing she was there with him, helped me get through it.”
A few minutes later, Griffin wrote a note thanking the nurse and everyone who had treated him. Then he wrote that his head and foot were hurting terribly.
A medical technician bent down close to Griffin’s disfigured face. “I hope you’re not going to cry,” the technician said. ” ‘Cause if you cry, then I’ll start crying.”
Griffin held back his tears.
Earlier, nurses had described his wounds to him, but Griffin now wanted to see for himself.
One of his doctors agreed, reluctantly. She handed him a mirror.
Griffin stared at his image for a long time. He coughed through the tracheotomy tube — a raspy, guttural sound. The doctor gave him a tissue and he wiped his eyes.
The soldier took a pen and a notepad. He scribbled something and handed it to the doctor. It read: “I’m scared.”
Those traitorous bastards at the Los Angeles Times, giving us this Bolshevik nonsense about war causing human suffering …
Ah, the dreaded gremlins of HTML.
My caustic words end with “how about the appended text” above, and begin again with “those traitorous bastards.”
The middle bits are entirely the property of the Los Angeles Times.
I shall not read the article, because I quit reading the LA Times years ago (you still sending them good money, Armed Liberal, to maintain your subscription???).
So doubtless my question may be covered in whatever propaganda accompanies the photo. My question is: who is this young man?
And further, did he give his permission for the LA Times to run his photograph?
And finally, one of the LA Times photog’s won a Pulitzer for taking pictures of the Palestinians holed up in and desecrating a church. Her photo essay was all about how brave and staunch the Palestinian terrorists were in their hour of need trying to run away from the mean Israeli soldiers hunting them. I’m wondering if that bitch is the same photographer as who snapped the current picture, and if not her, if the editor who choose this picture is also the same editor as who choose to run that story about the brave Palestinian freedom fighters and where they choose to shit in that church.
NahnCee:
Well, if you won’t read the article, then you ought not take umbrage at the image accompanying it.
Suffice it to say, the article sings the praises of the men and women who save our soldiers’ lives. A lot of men and women are coming back from Iraq with injuries which as recently as 1972 would have rendered them dead. And the magnificent service of our Army doctors is saving their lives.
Oh, but this aspect of Operation Iraqi Freedom is inconvenient. Pardon me.
From meet the press, Sunday:
Ret General ZINNI: I saw the – what this town is known for, spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or shading the context. We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media has covered well. I saw on the ground a sort of walking away from 10 years’ worth of planning. You know, ever since the end of the first Gulf War, there’s been planning by serious officers and planners and others, and policies put in place – 10 years’ worth of planning were thrown away. Troop levels dismissed out of hand. Gen. Shinseki basically insulted for speaking the truth and giving an honest opinion.
The lack of cohesive approach to how we deal with the aftermath, the political, economic, social reconstruction of a nation, which is no small task. A belief in these exiles that anyone in the region, anyone that had any knowledge, would tell you were not credible on the ground. And on and on and on, decisions to disband the army that were not in the initial plans. There’s a series of disastrous mistakes. We just heard the Secretary of State say these were tactical mistakes. These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here. Don’t blame the troops. They’ve been magnificent. If anything saves us, it will be them.
I remember the Admin firing this man, and attempting to destroy his reputation. I am sure that many who post in here, will dismiss his views….after all, what on earth could an actual expert have to add, a Marine General no less, when we have a strategery in motion, and our own version of reality.
Stickler –
The LAT does mention the historically low death rate for wounded soldiers. They make clear that the suffering of the wounded can be terrible, with the picture and story of this young hero. All this is true. They also make it plain how widespread this suffering is, with the first words under the photo: “One in 17,499.”
Except “53%”:http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf of wounded soldiers return to duty within 72 hours. Does the Times’ use of the total number of wounded combined with the picture make things sound considerably more dire than that?
I don’t think the LAT is a paid agent of Iran, Osama, or anybody else. I don’t think they want those people to win. But I do think they want to see the current administration lose, and if accomplishing that means undercutting public support for the war effort and helping the other side win, well, I think that’s a sacrifice the LA Times is willing to make.
WasteLand:
Support for this war is not like support for your favorite teen band: it need not be uncritical. We are not supposed to be a nation of fans. Our job as voters is to try and understand the issues, not form a cheerleading squad.
From the start of this war, critics, even critics wo supported the war, have been attacked or snidely dismissed for saying things which months or years later even the administration has been forced to admit, however obliquely. We said mistakes were bing made, the adminsitration now agrees that mistakes were made. But throughout this period of time we’ve had the giddy “rah rah, sis boom bah,” from the credulous and the uncritical who would pause their chant only long enough to denounce as traitors anyone not actively waving a pom pom.
The responsibility of our leaders — and our responsibility as voters — is to ensure victory. Waving pom poms and shouting that everything is simply wonderful, and demanding that the media reflect this uncritical point of view, does not win the war. Wars are won with appropriate strategies, effective tactics and sufficient force. We lacked three of three for the occupation.
The LA Times crows, the sun rises, and yet the LAT id not cause the sun to rise.
Thanks for clearing that up Mike. I was beginning to confuse the 84th with the Spice Girls; I see now that I’ve gotten carried away.
Very impressive.
You’ve proven to me that mistakes have been made in this war. You’ve proven to me that the administration is subject to criticism for those mistakes.
And yes Mike… those of us not immediately wowed by your brilliant analyses are merely the credulous and uncritical, waving our silly little pom poms.
Geeze… what a blowhard. The fact that you’ve completely disregarded – again – the discussion at hand doesn’t escape me. And that cock crowing thing… does that pass as illustrative metaphor in your blog?
The Staff Seargent ran over an IED, Mike.
He got blown up.
Nobody is blaming the LA Times for his injury.
Look. I’ve read the arguements about the photos being “digusting”, “agenda-driven” and so forth. I’m done with that. We are at war! What part of that phrase does anyone not understand. It’s past time for this behavior to be treated for anything other than it is: treason. This is not about freedom of speech. Supressing this speech is not fascism and censorship. This is about the responsibility of speech. It’s time for these editors to be reasonably disciplined according to the laws already on the books for such behavior. Period. End of discussion.
Especially in asymmetrical warfare, the propaganda aspect is as important as the strictly military one.
Should American media do pro-american propaganda? I’m not sure, and that may very well be asking too much.
Still, most of the media (there are exceptions, of course) are part of a chorus of defeatism if not anti-americanism. No, they aren’t necessarily friends of the jihadis, but this behaviour isn’t helping.
What’s the big deal? It’s not like they published a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a hat.
1: The conflict in Iraq is no longer a “War”, it is an occupation.
2: The invasion of Iraq by the US military had nothing to do with fighting international terrorism that threatens the US.
3: The “war on terrorism” is not being fought by this administration, but it’s supporters and loyalists do not want to admit this for fear of losing power.
4: Pictures published in a newspaper have no impact on either situation. Objecting to them reveals a propogandist’s attitude toward information in the US media or profound confusion over how and why wars are fought and won.
5: This “AL” is a blind Bush supporter and coward. He runs from Sticker’s questions or any other that pierce the thin veil of propoganda he is disseminating.
6: Propoganda is when people like AL (and others on this site) talk about “War” and “Enemies” and “Terrorism” but reserve the sole right to define (or not) what these terms mean.
7: Neocons do not and cannot define these terms becauses they serve primarily a domestic political purpose. To be of real value, a common set of definitions must be established and agreed to by all. This would not be hard if fighting terrorism or even solving the conflict in Iraq was really their goal. For example, there was a clear consensus after 9/11, but no longer: the good will and unity has been spurned by the warmongers.
stickler:
The people jumping from the WTC were not dead … yet.
Funny that the LAT still hasn’t published those “horrifying” Muhammed cartoons.
Below is the LAT’s editorial on the third anniversary of the war. Maybe someone could point out the factual errors:
THREE YEARS AGO TODAY, Iraqis were “shocked and awed” by the power of the U.S. military. Today, Americans are shocked and awed by its limits. If the “cakewalks” of the 1980s and 1990s — Grenada, the Gulf War, Kosovo — restored America’s belief in its omnipotence, so badly shaken in Vietnam, the occupation of Iraq has been a humbling letdown.
With a mere 38% of the public still thinking that the war is going well, and more than 2,300 U.S. troops dead, it’s become fashionable for the war’s initial supporters to have second thoughts. We opposed the decision to go to war. But we will resist the temptation to be fashionable and will take this opportunity to at least concede that the Bush administration’s actions were rooted in a strain of American idealism most often identified with Woodrow Wilson. The decision to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime was a Wilsonian attempt to preserve the notion of collective security; even more idealistically, it was an attempt to create an oasis of American-style democracy and prosperity that would alter the complexion of the entire region.
So much for the vision. The reality has been — to use a term from another unpopular war — a quagmire. Bush’s messianic idealism was never justified, and in any event the administration’s flawed execution would have undermined his purpose. The list of gaffes is by now distressingly familiar: the flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, the lack of sufficient troops, the tainted contracting process and so on.
To be fair, Washington has persevered in its quest to create a representative democracy in Iraq. But American surprise at the unfolding Sunni-Shiite schism, and our lack of preparedness to deal with the early dismantlement of the Iraqi military, have made the world’s reigning superpower look, once again, oddly naive.
And though it pledges to “stay the course” in Iraq, the Bush administration has long since fled the battlefield of ideas. It embarrassingly resorts only to Orwellian talk of a “war on terror” instead of addressing real issues, and its claims of relentless success are not to be taken seriously.
Most opponents of the war are hardly in a position to gloat about American difficulties in Iraq. Russia, France and Germany all cynically manipulated the run-up to the war for their own purposes, and they comforted Hussein by allowing him to believe that the international community would never take concerted action against him. And much of the mocking by Bush critics about the supposed absurdity of the administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction is revisionist nonsense. As the New York Times reported last Sunday, Hussein’s own top military commanders were stunned to learn three months before the start of the war that they had no WMD at their disposal. There is a Shakespearean quality to the tale of the dictator bluffing his way to his own demise, and it’s hard for those of us who opposed the war to bemoan his removal.
As it enters its fourth year, the war in Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political spectrum. The heroism of U.S. forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray uncertainty.
This is a very interesting discussion.
In every war, the enemy (whoever that is) usually tries to send information into the homefront. This information is best when it is closest to the truth: your family members are dying, there is no reason for this suffering, your leaders are hurting you, wouldn’t it be easy to just give up. The LAT and other anti-war outlets seem to be doing this job superbly. I am not saying they are the enemy, only they have the same goals as the enemy. Part of this is due to the “if it bleeds it leads” nature of the news business.
Michael. I read the LAT editorial and it mischaracterizes so much it’s impossible to know where to begin. I find it very normal for folks on opposite sides of an issue to have vastly different interpretations of the same factual events. Sometimes the facts themselves are up for grabs. So let’s just call it an honest disagreement.
The problem is that we may very well be winning a twenty year slow rebuilding effort in Iraq, which should be an ally for us. We should support our allies. Instead, we keep wanting to re-fight the war, and we want some kind of conclusion in time for the six o-clock news. Wouldn’t it be great if Iraq could either totally succeed or totally fail in time for the elections? This kind of thinking, by both sides, leads to overplaying events.
I think the fair thing for both sides is to assume that your country is in some war that is completely antithetical to your values. What’s the role of free speech in such a context? What’s the nature of political discourse?
I don’t have any answers. There are a couple of facts to consider, however. First, we live in a representative republic, not a true democracy. That means that we all don’t sit around everyday and decide how to run the country. We elect other bozos who do that work. Our job is to pick the bozos.
Secondly, we have separation of powers for a good reason. Leglislatures cannot fight wars, as our founding fathers knew.
In the end I think we have to support the system that gives the president powers to fight wars as authorized by Congress — even if we hate and abhor the current president and the current war. The state, conversely, can expect us to support the system if not the policies in place.
So “George Bush is an idiot” is a fair thing to say, as is any sort of personal remark on the poor quality of our leaders. “The soliders are dying for no reason” is not in-bounds. I’m not happy with this conclusion of mine, but I honestly can’t see how America could fight ANY war with the way our media and public discourse is running. And, as Martha Stewart would say, that’s a bad thing. Certainly we can agree that in some cases, the state has to defend itself. The way things are going now, I can’t see that ever happening save for a full-scale invasion. Is that what we want?
“1: The conflict in Iraq is no longer a “War”, it is an occupation.”
Perhaps, depending on your definition. But there can be no doubt it is legally sanctioned by both UN resolution and elected Iraqi aquiessence.
“2: The invasion of Iraq by the US military had nothing to do with fighting international terrorism that threatens the US.”
The only way this is true is if you ignore the stated objectives of the war- and the objective results. The administration spoke extensively of terrorist ties with Hussein, which post-war intelligence have confirmed. The main rationale of WMDs was defined as intolerably dangerous _because_ of the possibility of transferrence of these weapons to international terrorists. Objectively we have drawn Al Qaeda’s resources as well as an number of jihadis to Iraq. You can debate the wisdom of it but you can hardly claim its not happening. The administrations view (and mine) is that if AQ werent spending resources in Iraq in Iraq, they would be using them elsewhere. Perhaps Paris or Boston.
“3: The “war on terrorism” is not being fought by this administration, but it’s supporters and loyalists do not want to admit this for fear of losing power.”
No clue what this means. Rather seems like a slap in the face to our forces in Afghanistan if nothing else.
The rest of the post is a juvenile screed with even less substance (remarkably). Suffices to say its as pointless as it is false.
Let me try on the 38% think the war is going well.
That means 62% believe it is not or have no opinion.
Now of that 62% how many want the war prosecuted more agressively? If it is over about 1/6th of the 62% then those who want war are in the majority.
Which may be why the peace demos are getting more pathetic with time.
Here’s a related article.
Let’s see the LA Times publish this picture.
Link
BTW nice to see the Copperheads (they were Democrats then too) out in force.
http://powerandcontrol.blogsp*t.com/2004/10/copperheads.html
#55
Daniel:
I appreciate your response.
We have fought wars with a generally supportive press, (WW2, Spanish-American) and with a more divided press, (1812, Civil War Korea, Vietnam.) The media was basically anti-war during Vietnam, and yet we were there for nine years, give or take. We’ve won wars where the press was united, and wars where the press was fractious.
You are right that we hire people (politicians) to make decisions on wars and other things, but it’s still our job to elect those people on the basis of the best judgment we can bring to the matter. Unless we have a free press we can’t do our job as voters.
I assume we agree that the press ideally would tell the truth as completely and with as little bias, as possible. I assume we both agree that the press should not report troop movements that might endanger our guys.
I don’t dispute that parts of the media distort the reality of Iraq. I don’t doubt that many have a political agenda. I wish Fox News and the Washington Times and the New York TImes and CNN were all equally dispassionate and honest rather than tilting this way or that.
I think the comparisons some have made to WW2’s press corps are off-point. It’s not 1944. What we don’t get from US-owned media will still reach our eyes and ears from European or Arab media. And if consumers of news begin to conclude that the US-owned media are acting as boosters for this administration, not only will the media lose credibility, the administration will lose its capacity to communicate with the American people. Witness the derisive laughter when Mr. Cheney chose to speak exclusively to Fox after his shooting incident.
Democracy requires a free press, even in war time. This global war on terror has no termination date. Surely no one imagines that over the course of 10 or 20 or 30 years the media could maintain a happy-talk gloss over the GWOT. Pravda couldn’t manage that.
In this era, when we all have access to all the news produced anywhere in the world, the nostalgia some express for 1944 is simply that: nostalgia. Those days are over.
And it’s a good thing that those days are over. It is necessary for the people to maintain oversight on their leaders. Leaders often make mistakes, and they almost never admit them until forced to do so. The Bush administration has changed strategy in Iraq from denial, to insurgent wack-a-mole, to the curent clear-hold-build. Is there any reason to believe that absent political pressure, absent the awareness of voter oversight, that necessary change would have been made?
I go back to the case of Vietnam. We shifted from Cong wack-a-mole — a losing strategy — to Vietnamizaton, in part because the public had lost patience and confidence. Had the administration reacted sooner, we might concievably have carried the day. Not likely, in my opinion, but no one disputes that later Vietnam strategy was a big improvement over earlier.
The voting public is a necesary player. They cannot be pushed off into a corner and told to wave flags and never question or criticize. Skepticism, even in time of war, is a good thing.
If we hold the LAT or any other liberal outlet responsible for their anti-war tilt, we should hold the pro-war media exactly as responsible. Because the goal should be the truth — without that we the voters have a harder time doing our vital job. And remember that if we live on a diet of propaganda we are as likely to err in one direction as another.
AL,
I’d agree that the decision to print this picture on the front page was a bad idea.
However, given the forum this site gives to guys like Trent to whine that the media is losing the war for America, I find your complaint to be lacking any integrity.
You can try, but you really can’t have it both ways.
I’ll give another reason why this is cynical manipulation by the Times. As of this weekend, the big story out of Iraq is the release of Jill Carroll. This is positive news. Coupled with the positive news of her release was that the statments she said on the propaganda tape made by her captors were made under duress and she didn’t agree with them. These events give the impression that there is a positive change in Iraq. So, what does the Times do? Put large full color picture of soldier’s bloody face to shout, “Hey! Look over here!”. Nice timing LAT.
God, I love lists like this…
Well, no as long as there is active fighting going on, it’s pretty much a war. And some of us argue that it is not a stand-alone war, but a theater in a larger war that is being fought in Indonesia, the Philippines, parts of Africa, etc.
There are a couple of people who disagree, and no matter how often you hold your breath and repeat it as the revealed truth, that doesn’t make it one.
It’s not? Then what are all those soldiers doing? You may have a different plan for fighting Islamism, and there are legitimate arguments to have about it (although not with you, I’m guessing – I don’t think that’s a discussion you’re interested in having), but it’s absurd handwaving to dismiss what we are doing today without considering the background. And it’s laughable when Chris Bowers is setting support for the war as a threshold issue for status as a liberal, and the sole organizing principle of the Democratic Party seems to be coalescing around ‘end the war’ for you to make the claim that it’s the administration who are using the war for political leverage.
I’m having this made into a sampler – it’s the silliest thing I’ve read all month. Of course they (pictures) have a huge impact. And for me to highlight the propaganda impact of the pictures – and then be called a propagandist – is just deliciously silly.
Oooooh. I’m weeping here. No, I’ve been busy as heck with my real life, which takes priority over being here. I’ve got a longer post on the issue in the works, and if I can get a spare hour in front of the computer today, I’ll work on it. But I love the namecalling – it’s working for you and it lends all kinds of credibility to the other things you say.
Apologies. I keep forgetting you have the Revealed Truth, and we just have base propaganda and lies. I’ll try and remember that for the future.
I actually agree that agreement on a common set of facts and definitions would be of great use. But that implies a mutual respect, a willingness ot share the political space, and a certain measure of humility. And we all know that warmongers alone do not have any of those characteristics.
I’ve wasted time I don’t have to comment on this – but it’s been mad fun!
A.L.
#61
Michael. You and I agree on more than we disagree. I too, am not for constraining the press. But freedom of speech is important for political discourse, not war-fighting. There is a difference. There are things that a democracy does in which free speech does not help. This is a pretty well-known fact in local governments. We obviously can’t have the press reporting on personnel matters, or about the credit history of the local fire chief. Sunshine is great, but people who want absolute rights are most always wrong. That’s why we have courts. It’s never just one way or another.
“…I assume we agree that the press ideally would tell the truth as completely and with as little bias, as possible…” — I used to feel this way, but — to put it bluntly — I grew up. Any time a human being, a fellow mammal and bipedal primate, uses language to relay information to another, there is bias. I actually feel the press has done a great disservice to itself by taking on these religious airs. A reporter is just another schmuck with a sharp pencil. I read all sorts of outlets, from every political viewpoint. As long as I know where the person is “coming from”, I accept that as part of the message. This may be the biggest difference between now and say, 30 years ago.
One thing I can say for sure is that ten thousand planes are going to land today safely, and you’ll never hear about them. But the crash in Dover? That’s on the front page of drudge this morning. If it bleeds it leads.
So we have a problem. The nature of the press is to play up death and destruction. Whether it is our forces or others. Better to have a dead soldier (because everyone can relate to him, right?) than a dead foreigner. This means the press will continually over report dead soldiers. No matter what the cause of the conflict. Heck — they’re probably still clamoring to cover coffins coming back from overseas. Can’t miss out on all of that drama and pathos! I’ve known local reporters to show up at the funeral home to try to get family intereviews (many years ago). This sort of behavior is disgusting.
Yes. The voting public is a necessary player, but it’s only a player, not a driver. The system is created so that we could elect a Hitler, who could lead the nation into some god-awful war. Congress then, not the people, would have the responsibility to take action. There would have to be a grievous list of infringements on natural rights for the natural legislative powers of the people to take action (read the Declaration of Independence where just a list is laid out.) The system is supposed to be geared toward massive change in a peaceful fashion. This is not people marching in the streets, it’s people marching to the voting booths.
So I don’t have a problem with information reaching our ears from European and Arab media. I’m not talking about controlling the information, I’m talking about one’s civic responsibility to one’s country during time of war. I’m also not talking about “happy talk.” Positive mental attitude and dedication to our system is not “happy talk.” Although it can seem that way to outsiders. We have a great country and a great system of government. As long as we have troops committed to action we need to tell them what a great job they are doing. The whole community doesn’t gather around the fire department while it’s fighting a fire and talk about what a bad idea it was to buy this kind of fire truck anyway, how it’s pointless to save that building, and how there will just be another fire next week to put out so what’s the point? Do the papers run pictures of badly burned firefighters? These are professionals doing their job. We owe them our respect and support.
I would also suggest to you that information is one thing and politics is another. The LAT is making a political statement with that picture, not just sharing information. When papers decide what to run above the fold, they are making a statement about what they think is important. Are graphic pictures of wounded folks important? Yes, inside the context of why we’re over there. Outside of that context, it just serves to sell papers and promote a defeatist cause.
That’s my opinion. Like I said, I don’t have an easy answers. We have to be able to change bad policy, but we also have to be able to not tear each other apart when we are fighting a war. These are equally important goals.
Here are some nice photos dealing with a story the LAT missed.
And just in case here is another.
This picture and story are quite clearly propaganda by the LAT for the terrorists. Shameful.
A.L., Wizener’s posting is not merely namecalling, but its namecalling combined with bold foot stamping.
The credibility just oozes out.
Combined with Davebo’s bold assertion that giving Trent a forum for expressing himself, on the same website that Davebo and Wizener are allowed to opine, shows your lack of integrity; I don’t know how you live with yourself.
The LA Times ran this photo on their cover so their dwindling base readership, people like stickler, can pick up the paper at the corner newstand, and go home to jerk off to it.
That way, the Times’ printed version can take back some of their anemic market share, which the Internet has so badly eroded.
Oh, and also it pushes their traitorous political agenda.
#64
I couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of your intellectual shortcomings and dishonesty. Thank you.
If you’re so busy with “real life”, how did you manage to find the time to respond to my post, but not Sticklers much simpler question?
On top of that, your “responses” are so devoid of content and justification that you might have done a lot better just to let them lie, instead of attempting to “fisk” them away…you’re simply not up to it on short notice.
And when you have time to “think” about what you want to say, my limited experience here suggests it’s likely to come out even more confused and obtuse.
“And some of us argue that it is not a stand-alone war, but a theater in a larger war that is being fought in Indonesia, the Philippines, parts of Africa, etc. “
You left out Mars and the moons of Jupiter, not to mention Manhattan and San Francisco.
“I’ve wasted time I don’t have to comment on this – but it’s been mad fun!”
LMAO at you.
“God, I love lists like this…”
Which can only be interpreted that you are an exhibitionist who thinks that you can overcome your own “shortcomings” by continually putting them on display for all the world to see.
Too bad for you that the brain cannot be easily enlarged by responding to ads from the back of porn mags…
Funny, I was just thinking the exact same thing about your own posts, Wizener. Busy or not, AL just ripped your list to shreds with a minimum of effort or words; don’t you have any substantial response? You’ve been given the intellectual equivalent of a steel chair to the face, and the best you can come back with is a list of inane ad hominems laced with crude sexual innuendo?
When the original post already said “I’ll have a longer post on this tonight” at the bottom, and you start mocking AL for a slow response to some random commentor before that post even goes up, it makes me wonder why he puts up with your idiocy at all. Lord knows AL doesn’t need me to defend him, but one of the things that keeps me coming back to WoC is the excellent discussions that occur in the comments; why are you posting here, given your apparent inability (or, more charitably, unwillingness) to contribute to the discussion in a rational manner?
So we get this diatribe… what, once a week now?
People either vehemently agree with your opinion of the LAtimes, or vehemently disagree with your opinion. Nobody’s changing sides.
This discussion really comes down to media should have freedom during wartime. I’m glad that they do, there’s a bunch of stuff this administration refuses to cough up on their own. At the same time, I wish some of these agencies towed the line a little better.
But this website does not appear to be asking for objectivity… it wants propaganda. If you say publishing cartoons of muhammad is so important, than so is allowing the NYTimes to publish whatever it wants is equally important. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Stickler –
You ask if I think the LA Times is the enemy – the party with whom we’re at war – and I’ll answer with a simple “Obviously not.”
Haing said that, there is a real question to ask about their choice of photos – note my comment above; why not a photo of a whole soldier leaving the hospital to be greeted by her family? Wouldn;t that have made the point of the story just as well, if not better?
And to suggest that the favorible words in the article offset the graphic image (wait till you see today’s…) is to ignore about fifty years of careful research on marketing and presentation.
The media elites – who are a part of the political space within this country – have a strong position about the war; they are against it. Whether that’s because they are viscerally opposed to war, opposed to anything Bush does, or opposed for specific reasons to this war (and I think it is a combination of all three) is pretty irrelevent to me.
I don’t care about what they think or why right now. I do think we – collectively – need ot talk and think about how we maintain collective will in the face of hard things – or how we will live in a world where we can’t.
A.L.
The SF Chronicle just ran a similar 4-part front page piece ‘War Without End’. The photo of Sgt Buyas napping with his sons was the above-the-fold lead photo. The story was laden with typical elitist classism, “double-wide trailer”, “beauty parlor hairdos”, etc. The subtext wasn’t very subtle; that our military are working class dupes.
It just pisses me off that these vultures descend on our service people and military families when they at their most vulnerable to drive home their anti-military rhetoric.
I’m sure their core audience clucked and tut-tuted…but did any of them open their wallets to assist these men or families. We know the answer to that one by reading the left side of the blogosphere, don’t we?
The media and the left only has use for service people they can exploit, the rest are baby-killers.
Sorry to rant but this BS is beyond the pale.
I suggest you go to your local library and look up some foreign news magazines from the time after the failed Iranian hostage rescue under President Carter in April 1980. I remember many of them ran a large close-up photo of the charred face and body of one of the dead soldiers. Epoca magazine put it on the cover. You could see the wristwatch still on the arm of the charred body. This famous photo, used all over the world, was never published in the U.S. The contrast of the behavior of the press then and now is telling.
Hmm..
So AL, who are the “media elites” you constantly refer to?
Freidman? Nope. Krauthhammer? Nope Russert? Couldn’t tell by watching him. Hume? LOL! Brian Williams? Can’t see it here.
Or is Katie Couric the media elite? I guess in the morning for a couple of hours.
For every media person you can cite that you purport opposed the war (note opposed, a majority of the country opposes the war now and they all can’t be media elites can they?) I can produce more prominent media types who either did a excellent job of hiding their biases or outright supported the war.
Look, perhaps you’d be happier with a Hannitization of the “media elites”. I honestly don’t know.
But your constant “the media elites opposed this war” flies in the face of most of what the alleged “media elites” actually said and wrote during the run up to war.
Finally, an answer.
You ask if I think the LA Times is the enemy – the party with whom we’re at war – and I’ll answer with a simple “Obviously not.”
I’d submit to you that it is in no way “obvious” from your juxtaposition of that picture with those words by Liddell-Hart.
The media elites – who are a part of the political space within this country – have a strong position about the war; they are against it.
This is ludicrous, as Davebo points out. Show some evidence before you whip out the “media elites” strawman. Include Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in your response.
Yawn Stickler. Limbaugh? I believe some of the elites AL is talking about is the editorial staff of LAT, Chron, NYT and Wapo to name a few. Please list any major market newspaper who shows a positive tilt toward the war.
In fairness, the LAT is running this article along with some positive stuff “covering the performance of battlefield trauma teams.”:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wounded3apr03,0,3069118.story
“The story with the picture in question”:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wounded2apr02,0,2610364.story also contains this paragraph:
bq. “After three years of war, the military has honed a highly efficient lifesaving process that moves the wounded swiftly from the battlefield to emergency surgery in the combat zone, and on to military hospitals in Germany and the U.S. The approximately 17,400 troops wounded since March 2003 have been swept up in a medical effort unmatched in any previous war.”
The LAT’s decisions re: what pictures are questionable and which aren’t is legitimate criticism. Having said that, let’s acknowledge that this is also an instance where a major media outlet has reported on people acting heroically and doing the right things right as well.
“The approximately 17,400 troops wounded since March 2003 have been swept up in a medical effort unmatched in any previous war.”
And that number of wounded is extremely misleading. More than half returned to duty with 48 hours.
#65
Daniel:
Well, you and I are certainly reasonable enough. Not so sure about some of these crazy people.
Kidding, crazy people, kidding.
I would never suggest usurpation by the people — well, not in this situation anyway — just that as voters we should take our responsibilities as seriously as if we had direct control. Soldiers take seriously the duties we assign, the people should make sure that politicians don’t spend those lives capriciously.
As to the LAT editorial, I believe it tilts, but I don’t believe it tilts any more than the Wall Street Journal tilts the other way.
“For every media person you can cite that you purport opposed the war (note opposed, a majority of the country opposes the war now and they all can’t be media elites can they?) I can produce more prominent media types who either did a excellent job of hiding their biases or outright supported the war.”
Phaw, good luck. You want to go by viewership i’ll bury you with the networks alone. How many people watched Peter Jennings on Nightline reading the list of dead soldiers names compared to those watching Fox? Bill O’Reilly (who does opinion stuff and hardly counts) is probably the biggest tv guy for the right and gets 2 million viewers on a good night. NBC _alone_ gets over 8 million viewers on the Nightly News.
I cant remember who said it, but some conservative when told about the _right wing media bias_ proposed we trade Fox, the WSJ, Washington Times, and the New York Post and whoever else you guys want for CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, Washington Post, etc. Care to make that trade?
Nightline’s Ted Koppel rather.
The LAT is trite garbage. Who reads it? A lot of canaries and parrots, yeah, but otherwise? Nobody important.
Oh, and just for arguments sake, CBS’s “i’ll trade you access to Joe Lockhardt for Lucy Ramirez’s Word-job” 60 minutes still draws about 11 million viewers.
The problem is less MSM attempts to destroy our will to win, which the LA Times story and photo above are part of, as the Bush administration’s failure to support our will to win.
President Bush has utterly failed to use the “bully pulpit” of his office to foster public support for the war. This has led a significant segment of public opinion losing confidence in President Bush’s will to win, and it is that which is causing public support for the war to drop. Along with the public’s confidence in President Bush overall.
They’re asking why we should fight at all, and why we should support President Bush, when he doesn’t care enough about winning to try to win public support for the war.
I would like to nominate Tom Holsinger’s comment #86 above as the best comment of the thread.
It is lewd to exploit injured GIs for stupid political purposes
As one who supports an active military role in the war on terror, I nonetheless am bewildered by the way in which pro-war folks continue to view Iraq through a militaristic lens. The biggest challenges in Iraq and political and economic. Even if Al Queda got up and left tomorrow, the situation would still be incredibly bleak.
The media isn’t underming the war on terror, it is undermining a poorly planned, extremely violent nation-building experiment. Or, as real conservatives would have it, the media is voicing skepticism about grand-scale social engineering. How the right fell for this bait-and-switch is going to be the subject of PHD’s and bestsellers for decades.
For you Trolls and lightweights who think our media is showing the whole story. Those who think the media “showed the beheadings” Check below:
For all of you Trolls who question why we must fight and win. For all you who think that some poor terrorist held in a stress position, panties on his head, had naked pictures taken to blackmail support, or outright think we have done anything near torture to our prisoners check below:
Start here don’t worry its safe and it shows what happens to prisoners whose crime is being “American”:
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/nick_berg_beheading_video_nick_berg_execution_video_May_25_2004.html
Then when you think ohhh well they only do it to the Americans they are the devil anyway right OK then go here:
http://www.ogrish.com/beheading_videos.html
Yeah those are Russians (innocent), Europeans (not associated in war), Turk’s (denied participation), other innocent Iraqi’s whose crime who knows.
If that LA times video is OK with no context I want to know why these videos are not running loops 6oclock or stills on front page or better why these photos have not been front page LA times now or then?
Why have I seen every Abu Grahib photo available on TV and News but I have never seen a Beheading or even a still photos of such short the PRE-BEHEADED shots?
What is their a difference between the still photo of this wounded soldier (showing the cost of war) and a still photo of say Paul Johnston beheaded with his head laying on his back in a pool of blood (showing why we fight and why we must defeat this evil enemy)? They both are Americans, they both have to do with this war effort, and they both offend certain people, what’s the difference? Please Please troll or anyone else give me an answer because I know like most other regulars here do. One photo simply doesn’t fit the AGENDA of the media and the LLL.
“We should be seeing more photos of what happens when we don’t send men to war – like in Darfur”
Except… we aren’t doing a damn thing for Darfur, are we?
We ain’t doing much in Iraq either. Sitting back and not protecting the people there either.
If our troops were actually doing a job, and there were enough of them to get it done, I’d back them still. We owe nobody a job though, sitting back and waiting. It’s rather boring. Our current strategy is to let the civilian militias rule, and we should be showing more bloody pictures of what we have wrought.
Saddam may have been a monster, but at least he was a stable monster. The Iraqis want us gone, since we’re not really doing the job. This is the third and fourth string in their now, just sitting around biding their time.
The best part is the copy. I read the first couple of paragraphs, and it says that this guy is fine, except that he will need some new teeth.
There is rarely a soldier who, when injured in war, will not wish to go back when healed…Back to his comrades fighting there, and back to root out the potential spread of Islamofascism.
A man who looses a limb in a pressroom accident, may still have desire to go to print. Just as none are qualified to speak for one another, the story exploits the voice of the soldier..